The modularization was a security nightmare. These plugins needed elevated privileges, a d they all needed to handle security themselves, and as I hope you are aware, Flash was atrocious with security.
Those - yes. But generally something running on a page receiving keystrokes when selected and drawing in a square and interpreting something can be done securely.
And modern browsers have done a pretty good job securing the javascript sandbox.
One can have such a sandbox for some generic bytecode separated from everything else on the page. Would be “socially” same as then, technically better.
Let’s look at a scenario where there’s an exploit that requires a change to an API. With JavaScript, the browser vendor can ship a fix to the API, and web devs update their code. With a plugin, the browser vendor ships a patch, then the plugin vendor needs to ship a patch, and then web devs need to update their code. Some plugin vendors will be slower than others, so the whole thing will see massive delays and end users are more likely to stick to insecure browser versions.
Plugin vendors are going to demand the same API surface as current web standards and perhaps more, so you’re not saving anything by using plugins, and you’re dramatically increasing the complexity of rolling out a fix.
I think the current web is a decent compromise. If you want your logic in something other than JavaScript, you have WebAssembly, but you don’t get access to nearly as many APIs and need to go through JavaScript. You can build your own abstraction in JavaScript however to hide that complexity from your users. The browser vendor retains the ability to fix things quickly, and devs get flexibility.
Those - yes. But generally something running on a page receiving keystrokes when selected and drawing in a square and interpreting something can be done securely.
One can have such a sandbox for some generic bytecode separated from everything else on the page. Would be “socially” same as then, technically better.
Let’s look at a scenario where there’s an exploit that requires a change to an API. With JavaScript, the browser vendor can ship a fix to the API, and web devs update their code. With a plugin, the browser vendor ships a patch, then the plugin vendor needs to ship a patch, and then web devs need to update their code. Some plugin vendors will be slower than others, so the whole thing will see massive delays and end users are more likely to stick to insecure browser versions.
Plugin vendors are going to demand the same API surface as current web standards and perhaps more, so you’re not saving anything by using plugins, and you’re dramatically increasing the complexity of rolling out a fix.
I think the current web is a decent compromise. If you want your logic in something other than JavaScript, you have WebAssembly, but you don’t get access to nearly as many APIs and need to go through JavaScript. You can build your own abstraction in JavaScript however to hide that complexity from your users. The browser vendor retains the ability to fix things quickly, and devs get flexibility.