I want less things emulated via Javascript and more stuff done directly via native code. Everything that is built on top of HTML/JS/CSS is basically a hack that is trying to emulate much better native platforms and it sucks. Why advocate to stay there? Let's go in the other direction in my opinion.
On the other hand, for the first time in history, you have true "write once run everywhere". I can take my native C/C++ GL demos that normally run on the desktop, compile them to asm.js, distribute them via a simple URL, and users just click on a link and run the demo on every OS. No download and installation, no browser warnings about dangerous executables, no virus scanner scare popups. Compare this with iOS, where I need to be a certified Apple developer, need to sign my all my code, and can only distribute through the app store (and since it's only small graphics demos without real use, the gatekeepers would never let them through).
I don't think it will be all that hard from a security standpoint. This means mostly fixing the major mess that has been security at the OS level and isn't changing any time soon.
We're not supposed to be giving any application all power they want. We just want to let them use the GPU and take inputs on focus, and if they misbehave we kill them. If they need anything else, they'll have to ask the user. It took Microsoft what, two decades? to realize this. And it's only sightly better now. The mobile OSes were the first to grasp this but it's still imperfect.
Java almost got there but I believe it lost traction because of UI, lack of clear leadership and being tied to a language.
We're going to have to go with browsers because although it's a big pile of hacks they are finally realizing the obvious (in hindsight) way we should develop most applications. I have no doubt it will continue to catch on.
The choice isn't between "support HTML/CSS/JS" and "don't support HTML/CSS/JS". No Web browser can drop backwards compatibility. We haven't even been able to get rid of backwards compatibility for much worse things than CSS, such as <center>, because sites you need to use (such as Hacker News) won't update their markup to use CSS for layout.
asm.js is attractive because it is a small extension to the Web platform, so the overall additional complexity of an HTML/CSS/JS engine (which we are likely never going to be able to drop) doesn't go up much by implementing asm.js optimizations.
We're talking about Web browsers. Technologies that try to integrate into Web browsers specifically but don't have a good compatibility story with the platform haven't had a lot of success.
In some ways they do, but they are also nonstandard, with the downsides that that brings. Neither overall approach is perfect, it's good that we have a combination of both in our field.
Why get hung up on the fact that something is non-standard? Things don't just pop into existence as a standard way of doing things. Some core group of people has to agree on them and then away we go - we have a standard!
That's why everybody should actively use non-standard things that they want to become standards.
If you want to go native, then go native. If HTML/JS/CSS is a hack, then don't target the browser. It's that simple. Oh, you want to target the browser because it's ubiquitous? Well, that's because HTML/JS/CSS.
And on "emulating much better native platforms", well those native platforms are also trying (unsuccessfully) to emulate the web and the web is still winning.
While I fully support the development of alternatives to the web, I do not support that we should stop working on legacy technologies. Do you think people should have stopped working on gas lighting when electric lighting came along?
