biwascheme VS standards-positions

If Scheme is something you enjoy, BiwaScheme's interpreter can be instantiated from within Javascript and can be used to evaluate Scheme code.

https://www.biwascheme.org/

This project is very exciting. In the meantime, there are a couple of options:

BiwaScheme: https://www.biwascheme.org/

Advantages: written in JavaScript, with excellent JS interop. Project has some history.

Disadvantages: slower than S7 (though still plenty fast for many uses), less-complete (e.g., no syntax-rules or syntax-case, though it does have its own define-macro).

S7 Scheme: https://cm-gitlab.stanford.edu/bil/s7

Written in C, but can be transpiled to WASM (see https://github.com/actonDev/s7-playground/ )

Advantages: This project also has some history. Considerably faster than BiwaScheme.

Disadvantages: JS interop is clumsier (basically the same issues as JS interop with any WASM code... this could probably be mitigated considerably if someone wanted to take the time).

For Scheme implementations there are LIPS and biwascheme. I haven't done more than play around with them, so I can't really give an informed opinion about pros and cons or favorites.

I used to have hundreds of open tabs. From there I kept repurposing it to do more stuff with the browser until it reached its current state, where I want to make it a "extend firefox from Emacs" thing. It kinda do that already, but extending the firefox-extension itself require the extension to be re-built (so you need whole javascript tooling, rebuild and reload the addon etc). I am considering adding something like biwascheme to it soon to work around that.

And then users can just use biwascheme and run programs in mainframes and their smart toasters

Languages like Biwa Scheme and LIPS Scheme are good for running Scheme in the browser. But I would prefer compiling Scheme code to JavaScript in the server, then serving the compiled JavaScript image to the browser.

Just a note that even BiwaScheme doesn't fully implement call/cc, it doesn't save the whole environment when capturing.

Very cool! Do you know how this compares with Biwascheme? https://www.biwascheme.org/

Biwascheme has some weird scoping bugs that makes me a litte afraid of using it for serious stuff. It seems nixe and all, but this: https://github.com/biwascheme/biwascheme/issues/125 is not very confidemce inspiring.

There is another schemey language that compiles to JS that accepts things like this:

    (when (start-are-aligned?)

You can read through the conversations to understand more of the context

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100#is...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336

The main struggle is around giving informed consent that explains the risks. Understandably, browsers don't want to ship a "Set my printer on fire" button.

You can check why Mozilla and Apple have opted to not support this.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28

Neither Mozilla or Webkit are satisfied that the proposal is safe by default, and contains footguns for the user that can be pretty destructive.

FWIW Mozilla updated their position on Web Serial API to "neutral" and clarified that they might be okay with enabling the API with an add-on.

https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webserial

Allowing serial but not HID would be really strange. With HID you get standard identifiers that let you filter out devices that are too dangerous for the web. With serial you get nothing. Even if you know a device is dangerous, there's no way to protect users from it.

Hasn't FireFox been dragging their asses on @scope? https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472

It took years to just convince them of the need for it. And I'm not sure anyone got convinced vs Chrome had already shipped it and Safari has it planned so they caved in.

Hard to believe FireFox used to be a leader of the modern web.

As mentioned by others, OK idea, but not a fan that this isn't standardized. After a quick search+peruse, these seem to indicate that it's not around the corner either. Happy (/hope) to be corrected.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4180

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/990

Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100

I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare.

It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.

This should have big warnings on it. Some of these are not web standards; they are features implemented unilaterally by Google in Blink that have been explicitly rejected by both Mozilla and Apple on privacy and security grounds.

Take Web Bluetooth, for example:

Mozilla:

> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

Apple:

> Here are some examples of features we have decided to not yet implement due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns

— https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/

This is Microsoft’s Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish bullshit applied to the web platform by Google. Google keeps implementing these things despite all other major rendering engines rejecting them, convinces people that they are part of the web, resulting in sites like this, then people start asking why Firefox and Safari are “missing functionality”. These are not part of the web platform, they are Google APIs that have been explicitly rejected.

Is BLE a PWA requirement? I think they explained their position pretty well here, regardless of whether I agree:

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

I took a glance at Can I Use what the difference between the last public release of Firefox and Chrome is [1] and they don't really have that big of a difference in the eyes of normal use-cases? Some of these aren't implemented purely because of privacy reasons, the proposals aren't finished yet or complexity [2].

Why would Firefox need to change to Chromium engine? The only websites I notice that don't work with Firefox is because of user-agent targetting or just putting 5-second time-outs in Youtube code on non-chrome webbrowsers [3].

Can you give some examples of websites not working on Firefox?

[1] https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+120%2Cfirefox+121&compar...

[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[3] https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-seemingly-intentionally-...