11–20 of 100 posts
> With this in mind, maybe Wasm is mainstream. Spencer notes, for instance, that anyone who browses the web is likely to be interacting with WebAssembly on a daily basis.
I think that's correct. Non-Web usecases are a more complicated story (that the article focuses on), but the Web side is largely complete and successful, and that was the original purpose of Wasm. In that sense it's already succeeded.
> “While obviously C/C++ and Rust came to the ecosystem early on, other languages seemed to slowly put a ‘toe in the water’, first having limited support and then gradually investing more as usage takes off.” This is the biggest limitation for me. I like WASM fine, but anytime I want to use it I have to turn back to Rust. I like Rust fine, but without support in other languages, it's not necessarily worth diving into…
The real value in Wasm is in the Web use case: bring to the most popular platform software that was impossible (or very difficult) to bring before. Just look at Ruffle (Flash Player reimplementation), V86 (x86 virtual machine), Google Earth, ... Wasm on the Server is a fad, and sadly it's hijacking resources and design space from the real thing. WASI being a prime example: because of the "Component model", any attemp…
> Wasm on the Server is a fad Why? Or rather, what's the alternative?
Wasm is currently an alternative nobody asked for.
Web Assembly has (at least in the past) a business problem. In the past in nearly all prior discussions on this the greatest proponents for Web Assembly were developers who wanted to bring their technologies into the browser because they hate JavaScript. That is a horrible business case that is more effort than any value returned and no user will ever care about. Worse, it won't ever work if you intended it to be a J…
Web Assembly has (at least in the past) a business problem. In the past in nearly all prior discussions on this the greatest proponents for Web Assembly were developers who wanted to bring their technologies into the browser because they hate JavaScript. That is a horrible business case that is more effort than any value returned and no user will ever care about. Worse, it won't ever work if you intended it to be a J…
If you really want go to all-native JS because it has advantages, sure you can do. But what I see are bloated SPAs written in a language not designed for large software, based on an environment that likes to change and break things. It's abstractions upon abstractions get a hold of this mess.
I don't see why WASM couldn't compete.
This quote from the end of the article is good: > With this in mind, maybe Wasm is mainstream. Spencer notes, for instance, that anyone who browses the web is likely to be interacting with WebAssembly on a daily basis. I think that's correct. Non-Web usecases are a more complicated story (that the article focuses on), but the Web side is largely complete and successful, and that was the original purpose of Wasm. In t…
Do you have some in mind?
Web Assembly has (at least in the past) a business problem. In the past in nearly all prior discussions on this the greatest proponents for Web Assembly were developers who wanted to bring their technologies into the browser because they hate JavaScript. That is a horrible business case that is more effort than any value returned and no user will ever care about. Worse, it won't ever work if you intended it to be a J…
This quote from the end of the article is good: > With this in mind, maybe Wasm is mainstream. Spencer notes, for instance, that anyone who browses the web is likely to be interacting with WebAssembly on a daily basis. I think that's correct. Non-Web usecases are a more complicated story (that the article focuses on), but the Web side is largely complete and successful, and that was the original purpose of Wasm. In t…
Really? I can't think of a mainstream (as in used daily) site that uses WASM. Do you have some in mind?
I see a few major sites and some major plugins. The definition of "mainstream (as in used daily) site" may differ between groups.
This quote from the end of the article is good: > With this in mind, maybe Wasm is mainstream. Spencer notes, for instance, that anyone who browses the web is likely to be interacting with WebAssembly on a daily basis. I think that's correct. Non-Web usecases are a more complicated story (that the article focuses on), but the Web side is largely complete and successful, and that was the original purpose of Wasm. In t…
Perhaps from a C++ perspective, say a monolith with kilobytes of bindings driving a canvas. Yet
> the original purpose of Wasm
includes, as per the charter, "and interoperate gracefully with JavaScript and the Web", which is far from complete and, thanks to WASI and the Component Model, hardly improving. I guess it will remain a mystery how WASI could basically replace something as obviously useful as WebIDL-bindings - that is, until someone figures out.
This quote from the end of the article is good: > With this in mind, maybe Wasm is mainstream. Spencer notes, for instance, that anyone who browses the web is likely to be interacting with WebAssembly on a daily basis. I think that's correct. Non-Web usecases are a more complicated story (that the article focuses on), but the Web side is largely complete and successful, and that was the original purpose of Wasm. In t…
Really? I can't think of a mainstream (as in used daily) site that uses WASM. Do you have some in mind?