Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
1–10 of 186 posts
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#2What a well-designed and well-researched article!
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#3I'm excited about compiling to WASM not for performance but for correctness. Typescript is better than nothing but it really can't compete with the safety and ease you get from a language with a really good type system.
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#4Source maps are a debug tool. Why does the performance matter?
(And if you're shipping so much JavaScript to your site users that you need to "minify", maybe you're doing it wrong.)
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#5So much work to achieve what should be default behavior :-/
How did we end up in wasting so much time on trivialities?
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#6I'm excited about compiling to WASM not for performance but for correctness. Typescript is better than nothing but it really can't compete with the safety and ease you get from a language with a really good type system.
What about BuckleScript?
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#7I'm excited about compiling to WASM not for performance but for correctness. Typescript is better than nothing but it really can't compete with the safety and ease you get from a language with a really good type system.
What about BuckleScript?
My impression with Scala.js is that it's nice (and maybe the best option going at the moment) but you're still kind of a second-class citizen, which I'm hoping WASM will change. I imagine the experience with BuckleScript would be similar. (Whereas Typescript feels a lot more first-class, but at the cost of having to still be semantically very close to Javascript).
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#8Source maps are a debug tool. Why does the performance matter? (And if you're shipping so much JavaScript to your site users that you need to "minify", maybe you're doing it wrong.)
> Source maps are a debug tool. Why does the performance matter?
If the source map decoder is slow, then the debugger feels slow.
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#9I wonder if the performance gain is worth the effort. Surely you can always squeeze more performance from JS like from any other language but what's the point if you spend hours to match the performance you get for "free" from other languages?
As far as WASM is concerned I'm more excited about the possibility to run any programming language on the web than the raw performance gains. So far it is still year(s) away from this goal(i.e. lack of web APIs/DOM access makes it useless for web dev).
Re: Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS
#10Source maps are a debug tool. Why does the performance matter? (And if you're shipping so much JavaScript to your site users that you need to "minify", maybe you're doing it wrong.)
Tools like Sentry parse them, and need consistent fast performance in this area. Other debugging tools use them.
Your statement in brackets seems very "those damn kids"-ish. You need to "minify" your JS files even if you're shipping a small amount of JS, because loading performance matters and JS minifies very well.