Hacker News Reader

It's a plugin - meaning that we limit the users to using a subset of browsers (those with supported plugins) and forcing them to upgrade it when we want to use the latest features. This is NO worse than flash, it's just you write the apps in C/C++/Go rather than ActionScript.

I don't see the benefit; all I see is another Flash/Silverlight wannabe that puts more reliance on the user understanding their system/installed programs. This is not the future.

View on HN

Except that you have much greater choice of language. Honestly, I dislike client-side web programming because it forces me to use Javascript, even when Javascript may not be the most appropriate language. This would let me choose one of a large range of languages. Definitely a step up.

Secondly, isn't the point of this that it sandboxes native code? That means you can, potentially, have code running much much faster than Flash can.

More choice and better performance = win IMHO.

Better for us as developers but as for the user of the product (the person paying for/using it) it is not good. We are meant to have the problems and not just pass them to the users.

What problems are you referring to? Surely the problems can't be much worse than what you'd have with Flash anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com