What makes WebAssembly fast?
hacks.mozilla.org
What makes WebAssembly fast?
1–10 of 238 posts
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#2It's both amusing and absurd that what was practically intended as Java's little helper, JavaScript, has grown up to be this thing that might actually replace Java entirely.
How long until there's a really good JVM written in JavaScript of some form and embedded Java apps end up running in JavaScript for performance and security reasons?
It'll be even more ridiculous and hilarious if the "j" in "jruby" ends up meaning "JavaScript".
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#3I can totally see Qt a and .NET apps running on top WebAssembly. Imagine MS Word is running in your browser without them having to rewrite it in JS!
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#4It's both amusing and absurd that what was practically intended as Java's little helper, JavaScript, has grown up to be this thing that might actually replace Java entirely. How long until there's a really good JVM written in JavaScript of some form and embedded Java apps end up running in JavaScript for performance and security reasons? It'll be even more ridiculous and hilarious if the "j" in "jruby" ends up meanin…
It would be interesting to recompile the old applet plugin as WebAssembly - it should be both secure (well, as secure as WebAssembly ever will be) and fast.
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#5The edge over asm.js is a subset of this. Obviously, asm.js neither has JIT reoptimisation overhead, nor garbage collection to worry about.
However, a weird, highly-annotated strict subset of JS is not the ideal representation of what is basically portable assembly language. WebAssembly's big strength over asm.js is it has smaller executables and they can be rapidly decoded and verified in binary IR form, rather than having to shove megabytes of ungzipped bracket-fest through a JS parser.
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#6It's both amusing and absurd that what was practically intended as Java's little helper, JavaScript, has grown up to be this thing that might actually replace Java entirely. How long until there's a really good JVM written in JavaScript of some form and embedded Java apps end up running in JavaScript for performance and security reasons? It'll be even more ridiculous and hilarious if the "j" in "jruby" ends up meanin…
Java and Javascript are related like Car and Carpet are similar.
There was no historical connection between Java and JavaScript beyond renting the brand "Java" from Sun to make the language more credible.
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#7It's both amusing and absurd that what was practically intended as Java's little helper, JavaScript, has grown up to be this thing that might actually replace Java entirely. How long until there's a really good JVM written in JavaScript of some form and embedded Java apps end up running in JavaScript for performance and security reasons? It'll be even more ridiculous and hilarious if the "j" in "jruby" ends up meanin…
> It's both amusing and absurd that what was practically intended as Java's little helper, JavaScript, has grown up to be this thing that might actually replace Java entirely.
I though JS was named to piggyback on Java's popularity, not because it was actually intended to complement Java.
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#8The edge over asm.js is a subset of this. Obviously, asm.js neither has JIT reoptimisation overhead, nor garbage collection to worry about. However, a weird, highly-annotated strict subset of JS is not the ideal representation of what is basically portable assembly language. WebAssembly's big strength over asm.js is it has smaller executables and they can be rapidly decoded and verified in binary IR form, rather than…
> Obviously, asm.js neither has JIT reoptimisation overhead
Why does it never need to re-optimise the JITed code? I know WebAssembly and asm.js are more static than JS, but even very static languages like C benefit from speculative optimisations which may need to be reversed. For example asm.js and WebAssembly have branches don't they? Does the JIT always compile both branches even if one has never been taken in practice?
And what is the reoptimisation overhead anyway? If deoptimisation is caused by a bad speculation on the same thread, it's zero overhead on the fast path until it's used isn't it?
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#9I can totally see Qt a and .NET apps running on top WebAssembly. Imagine MS Word is running in your browser without them having to rewrite it in JS!
WebAssembly won't give you unlimited power. You will still have the browser sandboxing and security / privacy policies in place. Accessing to the local file system is for instance constrained in the browser for good reasons. WebAssembly apps will be able to do what Web APIs let any page do.
Re: What makes WebAssembly fast?
#10It's both amusing and absurd that what was practically intended as Java's little helper, JavaScript, has grown up to be this thing that might actually replace Java entirely. How long until there's a really good JVM written in JavaScript of some form and embedded Java apps end up running in JavaScript for performance and security reasons? It'll be even more ridiculous and hilarious if the "j" in "jruby" ends up meanin…
> It's both amusing and absurd that what was practically intended as Java's little helper, JavaScript, has grown up to be this thing that might actually replace Java entirely. I though JS was named to piggyback on Java's popularity, not because it was actually intended to complement Java.
"That’s right. It was all within six months from May till December (1995) that it was Mocha and then LiveScript. And then in early December, Netscape and Sun did a license agreement and it became JavaScript. And the idea was to make it a complementary scripting language to go with Java, with the compiled language."
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2653798/application-develop...