181–190 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When DOM access comes, all my js will hit the round file.
I dunno... React and React Native are nice. I would prefer to use those for UI but do everything else in C++14 or some other real language. The web stuff could just be the view.
The math site they linked to in the examples of sites powered by WebAssembly is awesome: http://mathstud.io/ I almost wish I was a student again so I could relearn math for the first time with all of these great tools...
Without DOM it's not really that exciting.
There is a lot of processing that doesn't inherently need the DOM, and there's also server-side stuff as well. I think you'd be surprised!
A good occasion to watch Gary Bernhardt's talk "The Birth & Death of JavaScript" [0] again, where he talks about the precursor of WebAssembly: asm.js and the future implication it "could" have in the future in a really humorous way. A few years old but still relevant. You want Gimp for Windows running in Firefox for Linux running in Chrome for Mac? Yeah sure. [0] https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and…
Great. We will soon have an entire JVM running inside each browser's tab, just to run an animated slider. Maybe even more than one. Plus a .NET VM, several Python and Ruby interpreters, and so on. Because webmasters will keep loading ready-made plugins from CDNs, exactly like they are doing now, except that the new generation of web software will carry their own interpreter or runtime with them, because the developer…
WebAssembly is not worth the effort unless it finally is supported by the LINK tag. Seriously, using JS to load a JS alternative is ridiculous.
WebAssembly is not worth the effort unless it finally is supported by the LINK tag. Seriously, using JS to load a JS alternative is ridiculous.
I can't agree more...but I believe the issue is that WASM sold a lie. Right now if you read between the lines it is argued that WASM is there just to help JS do more not to replace it.
WASM can be great if they allow it to.
I'm not as excited for this as I used to be. In most user applications JavaScript is good enough or better. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be taking the browser to make desktop applications. Recently I decided to make a desktop app and asked around about the different UI libraries. The answer I keep getting is "just use electron and JavaScript". Why? Because love it or hate it the Dom is fantastic and simple for makin…
A good occasion to watch Gary Bernhardt's talk "The Birth & Death of JavaScript" [0] again, where he talks about the precursor of WebAssembly: asm.js and the future implication it "could" have in the future in a really humorous way. A few years old but still relevant. You want Gimp for Windows running in Firefox for Linux running in Chrome for Mac? Yeah sure. [0] https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and…
There's another reason why I want JavaScript in the browser to die: We haven't had a new browser engine written from scratch since KHTML. Firefox is a descendant of Netscape, Chrome (and Safari) is a descendant of WebKit which is itself a descendant of KHTML, Edge is closed source, but I'm almost sure there's some old IE code in there. Why? It's simply too expensive to create a fast (and compatible) JS engine. If Web…
[1] Such as V8, Chakra, JavaScriptCore, SpiderMonkey, Rhino, Nashorn, there is a variety to choose from, also experimental models such as Tamarin, they are almost certainly not the critical blocker for developing a browser.