NaCl was first announced in 2008, along with a research paper and and source code (http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2008/12/native-client-technol...). The next year Google sponsored the NativeClient Security Contest that awarded prizes to security researchers who could break out of the sandbox. A lot of the design surrounding PNaCl has happened in the open (see http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl). I don't think it's accurate to say that NaCl was developed behind closed doors.

Also, other browser vendors seem to oppose NaCl in principle, and it seems unlikely that any other process Google could have taken to get buy-in would have resulted in other browsers accepting it.

I agree that there is a continuum of behavior here; in the NaCl case in particular though, it really seems like Google has done the right thing.

And how could NaCL have been done any better? It's been publicly published for years prior to the first shipping implementation. If Mozilla was interested, they could have put in requests for how they'd like to see NaCl and Pepper changed to better fit a Firefox implementation, or even a counter-proposal for running untrusted native code. But I've seen no such proposals, instead, just a blanket refusal to even consider it. I think there's a philosophical difference such that Mozilla isn't really interested in anything that isn't JS based, so suggesting that bringing NaCL to the working groups would have changed anything is somewhat disingenuous. It's kind of like hoping that Republicans would contribute to a National Single Payer healthcare plan design if it had been brought to the right committee.

It's a shame really, because proprietary native mobile platforms are hurting the web, and consumers don't really care, they just want fast apps which don't kill their battery or phone performance. Something like NaCL for mobile could preserve the DOM, CSS, browser security model, and other good things about the web, but replace JS with something much more performant for games, and this would go a long way to hedging risk against the proprietary native platforms. I'll take portal NaCl C-code calling into browser APIs and WebGL any day over Obj-C code calling into Cocoa that can only be installed through an app-store.

If the Web is to be around for decades more, the religion over programming languages needs to give way to polyglotism.

As on Dart, the language was released at version 0.1. The grammar isn't all that complex, the library is minimalist. It came with a early spec and source. It is not a "fully developed" specification. No one designs language grammars by committee. Languages are highly personal and opinionated. Usually one or two people design the overall structure of the language privately, and then release an initial spec, and it evolves from there.

When Mozilla developed Rust, the first time most of the web heard of it was Graydon dumping a gigantic codebomb into GitHub and it being covered on Lambda-the-Ultimate.

Which I think is perfectly find, but let's try and be a little level headed and fair, and not arrogantly think that what Mozilla does is uniquely better than what others are doing.

(I speak only for myself and I do not work on Dart, NaCl, nor Chrome)

Certainly, every vendor has been guilty here. I at least think that every extension Mozilla is currently encouraging use of is hoped to be a potential future standard. (And no, I'm not claiming this is unique -- some other vendors like Google are also good citizens in this regard.)

I also agree that proprietary platforms are hurting the web, and that the web needs new abilities in order to fight the threat. However, to preserve the openness of the web, new features need to be things that more than one vendor has the resources and motivation to implement; even if Mozilla and Opera thought Dart or Pepper were great ideas, adopting them would put is on a treadmill where Google (with its much greater resources) controls the speed.

And no, I am not claiming that Apple/Mozilla/Opera would have adopted Dart or NaCL if they were brought before the right committee at the right time. Part of getting early feedback means finding out if the community even thinks that your solution is something that's desired in the first place.

"When Mozilla developed Rust, the first time most of the web heard of it was Graydon dumping a gigantic codebomb into GitHub and it being covered on Lambda-the-Ultimate."

This is actually an interesting contrast between Mozilla and Google. The initial Rust code-dump was a barely-running proof-of-concept; it was shared with the world on the same day it was first shared within the Mozilla community. Zero lines of the current self-hosted compiler were written at the time. Most of the planned features (like the task system) were unimplemented. The first actual release (Rust 0.1 alpha) came a year and a half later, and that first release already reflected significant community feedback and contributions. For example, the packaging system in Rust 0.1 was written by a volunteer contributor who happens to be a Google employee. The stage of maturity at which Rust became open source was far earlier than Go.

Some things really are different at a non-profit like Mozilla, and the goal of opening everything up as early as possible is one thing that's unique among tech companies I've worked for or with. We don't always do it perfectly, and we do struggle with the need for people to do some types of design and experimentation without the world looking over their shoulders, but it's very much a unique core principle that affects all of our work.

Almost all of the additions to the browser API that Google has made are desired to make it into spec proposals. There is no desire for Chrome to be the only implementor of Dart or NaCL.

I'm a little concerned what you're saying here. That if an idea is good, it won't be adopted anyway, just because someone else has greater resources to implement it. It sounds like Not-invented-here syndrome to me. No matter what technical specs are proposed, Google is always going to have greater resources to develop them.

Everything you say about Mozilla, I can say about my experience at Google. The first release of Dart was very incomplete, it didn't implement a lot of the type system, no missing method, some stuff like default method parameters didn't exist. It generally really slow and bloated code. It was in a barely working state. The DartC compiler which was implemented in Java was not a production compiler design to be used by people, it was a prototype for research. This idea that Google sprang a fully-formed already finished product on everyone is a gross exaggeration. The Dart VM isn't even in Chromium yet.

The self-hosted compiler (Frog, written in Dart) has been developed completely in the open.

Google is a large company with hundreds and hundreds of projects, so not all of them operate the same way, but many of them are open sourced very early in the process, and Googlers push to release source early for client side web technologies. Google has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on acquisitions which it immediately turned around and open sourced, like WebM, and the first Google Web Toolkit, and Instantiation's products (donated to Eclipse Foundation)

Really, I think the comments on NaCl and Dart are patently unfair. They were released practically as early as they could have been, NaCL took, what, 2-3 years in the open of development before it was finally pushed to production.

Ultimately, if standards committees get gridlocked over political and emotional stuff, instead over the merits of technology, you will see people start to ignore them. A similar thing happened in with OpenGL ARB where vendors who had less resources voted down and blocked companies like NVidia and ATI who were progressing chips at a faster pace. Ultimately, it took DirectX surpassing OpenGL to push it to finally start evolving faster again.

I do think we agree on fundamentals though we may disagree on some cost-benefit analysis. All I meant about the "treadmill" is that some proposals have a much greater cost to implementers than others, and different organizations will weigh those costs differently. While some debaters may throw out "political or emotional" responses, I believe the decision-making process should be (and is, in the cases I've participated in) about allocation of resources, complexity of implementation, and the desired architecture of the web.

Technical issues and process issues are separate, but affect each other. When I say the process behind something like Touch Events was bad, I'm not giving that as a reason to reject the feature -- I think the feature should be accepted or rejected on its merits, like you said -- but it does mean that any technical objections that do appear will be much harder to resolve than they might have been. And as you say, Dart and NaCL have had better process behind them than Touch Events or various other extensions I could name. Dart and NaCL may succeed or they may fail (just as many of Mozilla's current experiments may suceed or fail), but at least their fates will be influenced by feedback from all stakeholders.

You are obviously better informed than I am about Dart and NaCL implementation. (Also, I accidentally conflated Go and Dart in my previous comment, which is embarrassing!) I apologize for any uninformed comments and defer to you on all the facts there.

I really don't want people to see this as a "Mozilla versus Google" thread. I hope everyone cares about standards issues because they help or hurt the web, not because they helps their favorite vendor or hurt a competing one. In the big picture, Google and Mozilla are close allies when it comes to web standards. As you say, the real risks to the open web are elsewhere.