Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

tutorials.technology

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#11

Post by dispose13432 »

geofft wrote: post #9
StavrosK wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it very strange that you see minified, basically completely unreadable JS as better than C (straw man, it's actually "any programming language") and assembly. If we aren't being disingenuous, it's "any language you want versus JS" and "minified, obfuscated JS versus assembly".

The web has a free software problem (either that, or native code has a free software anti-problem because distributing portable precompiled code is so hard), but I find minified JS no more or less acceptable, as a language to read, than assembly generated from an optimizing compiler. That said, minified JS on the web runs in a sandbox with a sane security model (yes, browsers don't implement it 100% right, but at lea…

The point of WebAssembly is to use the sandbox as a means of shipping compiled binaries in a secure manner.

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#12

Post by mtgx »

dispose13432 wrote: post #11
geofft wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web has a free software problem (either that, or native code has a free software anti-problem because distributing portable precompiled code is so hard), but I find minified JS no more or less acceptable, as a language to read, than assembly generated from an optimizing compiler. That said, minified JS on the web runs in a sandbox with a sane security model (yes, browsers don't implement it 100% right, but at lea…

The point of WebAssembly is to use the sandbox as a means of shipping compiled binaries in a secure manner.

I wonder could all WebAssembly code be shipped in secure containers and make it run similarly to how Google sandboxed the whole Android framework inside of Chrome OS?

Is the security of WebAssembly worse than that currently? Or is it somewhat similar?

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#13

Post by xuejie »

kLeeIsDead wrote: post #2

As someone who has stayed far away from the perils of web development, will this be the step that finally makes it sane again? I figure the sooner the DOM + JavaScript/EMCAScript die the better; and with asm.js and WebGL I thought that day finally came... but nope. 3 years later we're still scuttling around bad design decisions of over two decades ago.

I don't like DOM, either. But whenever I see comments like this I want to ask: what do you propose as an alternative? WASM is more of a replacement for JS, DOM still requires a replacement if we hate it so much that we want to ditch it.

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#14

Post by flukus »

kLeeIsDead wrote: post #2

As someone who has stayed far away from the perils of web development, will this be the step that finally makes it sane again? I figure the sooner the DOM + JavaScript/EMCAScript die the better; and with asm.js and WebGL I thought that day finally came... but nope. 3 years later we're still scuttling around bad design decisions of over two decades ago.

At that point why build a web app at all? It's just a deployment platform.

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#15

Post by kowdermeister »

kLeeIsDead wrote: post #2

As someone who has stayed far away from the perils of web development, will this be the step that finally makes it sane again? I figure the sooner the DOM + JavaScript/EMCAScript die the better; and with asm.js and WebGL I thought that day finally came... but nope. 3 years later we're still scuttling around bad design decisions of over two decades ago.

We have canvas for like ages. Nobody wants to implement a "better" GUI than the DOM because it's an immensely difficult task with little to no benefit.

WebAssembly will eventually have a DOM API and then JS will not die its growth will just slow down and plateau.

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#16

Post by bobajeff »

dispose13432 wrote: post #11
geofft wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web has a free software problem (either that, or native code has a free software anti-problem because distributing portable precompiled code is so hard), but I find minified JS no more or less acceptable, as a language to read, than assembly generated from an optimizing compiler. That said, minified JS on the web runs in a sandbox with a sane security model (yes, browsers don't implement it 100% right, but at lea…

The point of WebAssembly is to use the sandbox as a means of shipping compiled binaries in a secure manner.

I was under the impression the point of WebAssembly is to do asm.js better.

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#17

Post by [deleted] »

kLeeIsDead wrote: post #2

As someone who has stayed far away from the perils of web development, will this be the step that finally makes it sane again? I figure the sooner the DOM + JavaScript/EMCAScript die the better; and with asm.js and WebGL I thought that day finally came... but nope. 3 years later we're still scuttling around bad design decisions of over two decades ago.

[deleted]

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#18

Post by kLeeIsDead »

xuejie wrote: post #13
kLeeIsDead wrote: post #2

As someone who has stayed far away from the perils of web development, will this be the step that finally makes it sane again? I figure the sooner the DOM + JavaScript/EMCAScript die the better; and with asm.js and WebGL I thought that day finally came... but nope. 3 years later we're still scuttling around bad design decisions of over two decades ago.

I don't like DOM, either. But whenever I see comments like this I want to ask: what do you propose as an alternative? WASM is more of a replacement for JS, DOM still requires a replacement if we hate it so much that we want to ditch it.

A framebuffer?

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#19

Post by [deleted] »

madeofpalk wrote: post #4
kLeeIsDead wrote: post #2

As someone who has stayed far away from the perils of web development, will this be the step that finally makes it sane again? I figure the sooner the DOM + JavaScript/EMCAScript die the better; and with asm.js and WebGL I thought that day finally came... but nope. 3 years later we're still scuttling around bad design decisions of over two decades ago.

I find it very strange that you see 'web development' as something that's bad, and the answer to it is to write C and ship assembly code to clients.

[deleted]

Re: WebAssembly initial steps tutorial

#20

Post by [deleted] »

flukus wrote: post #14
kLeeIsDead wrote: post #2

As someone who has stayed far away from the perils of web development, will this be the step that finally makes it sane again? I figure the sooner the DOM + JavaScript/EMCAScript die the better; and with asm.js and WebGL I thought that day finally came... but nope. 3 years later we're still scuttling around bad design decisions of over two decades ago.

At that point why build a web app at all? It's just a deployment platform.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN