Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
tomassetti.me
Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
1–10 of 259 posts
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#2I am betting when WebAssembly gets mature all Web sites will look like Flash, just coded on the framework of choice, thus finally making the browser just yet another VM.
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#3We shouldn't. All the nonsense we're trying to cram into the Web is making it harder to justify connecting to it. I long for the days when simple images and text were the norm. Nowadays, I need to have and devote constant system resources to a tracking-blocker, cookie-blocker, an ad-blocker, a script-blocker, a separate javascript-blocker, and a who-knows-what-else-blocker, just to do the things I want to do; let alone the things I need to do.
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#4what does WebAssembly mean For script-kiddies and malicious sites? I mean : with great power.....
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#5I know a lot of people long for the days when the web was just text and a few JPGs. I personally am waiting for the web to become a rich, ubiquitous, standardised application delivery platform that works on any device. I think web assembly adds to the richness while being fairly standardised, so I welcome it!
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#6I am betting when WebAssembly gets mature all Web sites will look like Flash, just coded on the framework of choice, thus finally making the browser just yet another VM.
In the process, specialised web browsers such as browsers for the blind, will be rendered useless.
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#7I am betting when WebAssembly gets mature all Web sites will look like Flash, just coded on the framework of choice, thus finally making the browser just yet another VM.
With all major browser JIT compiling JavaScript, aren't they already?
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#8We shouldn't. All the nonsense we're trying to cram into the Web is making it harder to justify connecting to it. I long for the days when simple images and text were the norm. Nowadays, I need to have and devote constant system resources to a tracking-blocker, cookie-blocker, an ad-blocker, a script-blocker, a separate javascript-blocker, and a who-knows-what-else-blocker, just to do the things I want to do; let alo…
> I long for the days when simple images and text were the norm.
The main issue with the web currently is that tools designed for the purpose of displaying simple images and text, plus a little interactivity, are being stretched to realize complex applications.
Powerful on-demand applications on the web are a good thing, and it's a good thing that we're finally getting the tools to build them properly.
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#9We shouldn't. All the nonsense we're trying to cram into the Web is making it harder to justify connecting to it. I long for the days when simple images and text were the norm. Nowadays, I need to have and devote constant system resources to a tracking-blocker, cookie-blocker, an ad-blocker, a script-blocker, a separate javascript-blocker, and a who-knows-what-else-blocker, just to do the things I want to do; let alo…
[deleted]
Re: Introduction to WebAssembly: why should we care?
#10From the site: The kind of binary format being considered for WebAssembly can be natively decoded much faster than JavaScript can be parsed (experiments show more than 20× faster). On mobile, large compiled codes can easily take 20–40 seconds just to parse, so native decoding (especially when combined with other techniques like streaming for better-than-gzip compression) is critical to providing a good cold-load user experience.
– from the FAQ of WebAssembly
If you build a website and have to parse something for 20-40 secs for a user, they should fire you on the spot for bad design. Start working for adult sites, if loads longer then 2 secs, redesign.