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

WebAssembly Studio

webassembly.studio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 231 posts

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#11

Post by suprfsat »

tomasreimers wrote: post #2

Jokes about the [Birth and Death of JavaScript]( https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death... ) aside, I love the concept of WASM and that we're making the web a more robust compile target. One of the big limitations in my mind is that I still don't know of that many people using it in production at scale. Is there a list, or well known set of examples (other than Figma), who are using WASM in prod…

Google Duo's web client has some wasm code cached under the name 'wasm-clips'.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#12

Post by texodus »

tomasreimers wrote: post #2

Jokes about the [Birth and Death of JavaScript]( https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death... ) aside, I love the concept of WASM and that we're making the web a more robust compile target. One of the big limitations in my mind is that I still don't know of that many people using it in production at scale. Is there a list, or well known set of examples (other than Figma), who are using WASM in prod…

Perspective is developed at JPMorgan https://github.com/finos/perspective/

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#13

Post by blunte »

It would be nice if there was a no-javascript fallback - at least a message saying "This site only works with javascript enabled."

If you have noscript, this site is completely blank until you enable a couple of things and reload.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#14

Post by CyberDildonics »

blunte wrote: post #13

It would be nice if there was a no-javascript fallback - at least a message saying "This site only works with javascript enabled." If you have noscript, this site is completely blank until you enable a couple of things and reload.

You thought a web page webasm ide would work without javascript?

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#15

Post by CyberDildonics »

mwcampbell wrote: post #10

The "Create New Project" dialog has serious accessibility problems when used with a screen reader. The buttons are clickable divs, not actual HTML buttons or even marked up with proper ARIA. I haven't yet ventured any further into the app. Given that the app is a WebAssembly development environment, my first guess was that it was built in WebAssembly itself, with a custom UI framework. But in fact, it's plain React,…

There is a github link at he top right, you could start there.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#16

Post by abellerose »

mwcampbell wrote: post #10

The "Create New Project" dialog has serious accessibility problems when used with a screen reader. The buttons are clickable divs, not actual HTML buttons or even marked up with proper ARIA. I haven't yet ventured any further into the app. Given that the app is a WebAssembly development environment, my first guess was that it was built in WebAssembly itself, with a custom UI framework. But in fact, it's plain React,…

..

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#17

Post by mwcampbell »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #15
mwcampbell wrote: post #10

The "Create New Project" dialog has serious accessibility problems when used with a screen reader. The buttons are clickable divs, not actual HTML buttons or even marked up with proper ARIA. I haven't yet ventured any further into the app. Given that the app is a WebAssembly development environment, my first guess was that it was built in WebAssembly itself, with a custom UI framework. But in fact, it's plain React,…

There is a github link at he top right, you could start there.

I was talking about the general problem of new inaccessible apps being developed, not this specific project.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#18

Post by bavell »

k__ wrote: post #8
bavell wrote: post #4

Seeing gulp being used in the examples for the build step is strange... I wonder why it was chosen. Nothing wrong with it per se but gives me flashbacks to the horrors of my past exposure to it as an inexperienced webdev.

I only did one Gulp project and read it was a drastic improvement over Grunt, which I didn't use. But most of my projects were done with Webpack and NPM scripts.

As much as people bemoan the complexity of Webpack, it's far superior to the (IMO) spaghetti code of gulp that inevitably results. I'll choose Webpack and npm scripts every time.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#19

Post by k__ »

bavell wrote: post #18
k__ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only did one Gulp project and read it was a drastic improvement over Grunt, which I didn't use. But most of my projects were done with Webpack and NPM scripts.

As much as people bemoan the complexity of Webpack, it's far superior to the (IMO) spaghetti code of gulp that inevitably results. I'll choose Webpack and npm scripts every time.

Today, I would probably choose something higher level than meddling around with Webpack directly.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#20

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

bavell wrote: post #4

Seeing gulp being used in the examples for the build step is strange... I wonder why it was chosen. Nothing wrong with it per se but gives me flashbacks to the horrors of my past exposure to it as an inexperienced webdev.

Gulp is still widely used for more general build-related tasks like moving files around but sometimes you have a more complex build pipeline where you need to invoke bundlers/babel/etc via Gulp.
Post reply on HN