<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google&#8217;s Crazy Cool Idea: Native Client</title>
	<atom:link href="http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/12/19/googles-crazy-cool-idea-native-client/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/12/19/googles-crazy-cool-idea-native-client/</link>
	<description>by Stephen E. Arnold</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:55:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: klimzk</title>
		<link>http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/12/19/googles-crazy-cool-idea-native-client/comment-page-1/#comment-33764</link>
		<dc:creator>klimzk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/?p=3624#comment-33764</guid>
		<description>This native client idea sounds like Google version of ActiveX to me. We know for sure it won&#039;t take over task scheduling, resource allocation, garbage collection, security, graphics rendering, device driver communication, theading and soon multi-core support from a modern OS. It&#039;ll be a dumbed down NC w/ limited features that is hardly attractive.

And what about platform independence? Since it&#039;s in a browser, it has to be independent. It&#039;ll be like reinventing the JAVA wheel once Google goes there. If Java hasn&#039;t been able to keep a client side OS at bay, will Google&#039;s idea change that?

For some time Google has been touting an &quot;HTML 5 + Javascript&quot; proposal, which is not native at all,  to give client side web apps a boost. Funny now they come up with a 180&#039; plan. My take is that they are just throwing both out onto the wall and see which sticks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This native client idea sounds like Google version of ActiveX to me. We know for sure it won&#8217;t take over task scheduling, resource allocation, garbage collection, security, graphics rendering, device driver communication, theading and soon multi-core support from a modern OS. It&#8217;ll be a dumbed down NC w/ limited features that is hardly attractive.</p>
<p>And what about platform independence? Since it&#8217;s in a browser, it has to be independent. It&#8217;ll be like reinventing the JAVA wheel once Google goes there. If Java hasn&#8217;t been able to keep a client side OS at bay, will Google&#8217;s idea change that?</p>
<p>For some time Google has been touting an &#8220;HTML 5 + Javascript&#8221; proposal, which is not native at all,  to give client side web apps a boost. Funny now they come up with a 180&#8242; plan. My take is that they are just throwing both out onto the wall and see which sticks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

