WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
blog.openbloc.fr
WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
1–10 of 153 posts
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#2Nice!
With a BBC Micro (6502, 1MHz) I was able to achieve about the same FPS (I was genlocked for UK PAL TV transmission so either 25FPS or 50FPS) but only for a 40x25 grid, using 6502 assembler embedded in BASIC!
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#3Nice! With a BBC Micro (6502, 1MHz) I was able to achieve about the same FPS (I was genlocked for UK PAL TV transmission so either 25FPS or 50FPS) but only for a 40x25 grid, using 6502 assembler embedded in BASIC!
Much as I miss the Beeb, this is completely irrelevant.
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#4Why isn't the Emscripten SDK distributed via npm? Doesn't npm support host specific binary artifacts?
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#5Why isn't the Emscripten SDK distributed via npm? Doesn't npm support host specific binary artifacts?
Check this out: https://github.com/dcodeIO/webassembly
Binaries are hosted on GitHub but will be downloaded for you
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#6Nice! With a BBC Micro (6502, 1MHz) I was able to achieve about the same FPS (I was genlocked for UK PAL TV transmission so either 25FPS or 50FPS) but only for a 40x25 grid, using 6502 assembler embedded in BASIC!
Much as I miss the Beeb, this is completely irrelevant.
I'd be inclined to agree. Unless the point was not to show off, but that a 30 year-old computer is as fast as the bleeding edge in browser rendering technology.
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#7Nice! With a BBC Micro (6502, 1MHz) I was able to achieve about the same FPS (I was genlocked for UK PAL TV transmission so either 25FPS or 50FPS) but only for a 40x25 grid, using 6502 assembler embedded in BASIC!
Much as I miss the Beeb, this is completely irrelevant.
... I don't share your sentiment at all. I find this relevant to the subject matter as he is, albeit indirectly, mentioning the performance of WASM. I would be surprised if you got the same performance using just plain old js on the hardware he is referencing.
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#8Nice! With a BBC Micro (6502, 1MHz) I was able to achieve about the same FPS (I was genlocked for UK PAL TV transmission so either 25FPS or 50FPS) but only for a 40x25 grid, using 6502 assembler embedded in BASIC!
Much as I miss the Beeb, this is completely irrelevant.
Why? It gives a perspective on the resulting performance.
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#9I recommend anyone wanting to experiment with WASM to check out https://github.com/dcodeIO/webassembly which takes a lot of pain out of setting up the toolchain and lets you produce much leaner binaries as well.
Also keep an eye on https://github.com/dcodeIO/AssemblyScript :)
Re: WebAssembly 101: A developer’s first steps
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much as I miss the Beeb, this is completely irrelevant.
... I don't share your sentiment at all. I find this relevant to the subject matter as he is, albeit indirectly, mentioning the performance of WASM. I would be surprised if you got the same performance using just plain old js on the hardware he is referencing.
I'm not sure that you could load JS on the BBC Micro!
The point as that for something running safely virtualised (and standardised) in a random browser and on a much larger canvas, the WASM implementation is very impressive.