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

WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 248 posts

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#71

Post by paulhodge »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #44
klodolph wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is currently no path for any of that. No rendering without a DOM, and no opening WASM files by themselves. The same is true for JavaScript... if you open a JavaScript file, you just see the source code. Of course, why not just use a small HTML+JS shim for your WASM?

Because there is value in ditching legacy cruft.

HTML isn't legacy cruft, it's an essential part of the web that will never go away. If you want to ship an app with no HTML, then use a different platform.

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#72

Post by saghm »

tcoff91 wrote: post #53
cjbprime wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're still waiting for a WASM-only OS, though :)

I think I remember reading something on HN about some kind of tool for running WASM in some kind of kernel module to speed up app performance. EDIT: here it is: https://medium.com/wasmer/running-webassembly-on-the-kernel-...

I remember something like that being posted too; I think this is it? https://github.com/nebulet/nebulet

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#73

Post by yzmtf2008 »

somurzakov wrote: post #70

i wonder what are the security implications. how many new vulnerabilities will be uncovered, machines infected, and viruses implemented in wasm. the concept of wasm doesn't really fly with zero-trust internet

> if any website can load a javascript that loads wasm code that does whatever

Any website can already do that with asm.js. WASM does not change the security model of browsers.

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#74

Post by weberc2 »

somurzakov wrote: post #70

i wonder what are the security implications. how many new vulnerabilities will be uncovered, machines infected, and viruses implemented in wasm. the concept of wasm doesn't really fly with zero-trust internet

Can you elaborate? I would think the sandbox nature of wasm would be a better fit than other models, and presumably no worse than JavaScript?

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#75

Post by BlueTemplar »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #44
klodolph wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is currently no path for any of that. No rendering without a DOM, and no opening WASM files by themselves. The same is true for JavaScript... if you open a JavaScript file, you just see the source code. Of course, why not just use a small HTML+JS shim for your WASM?

Because there is value in ditching legacy cruft.

If you don't want cruft, don't make a browser-based app?

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#76

Post by JoshTriplett »

airstrike wrote: post #64
kemonocode wrote: post #30

It's really uncanny how Gary Bernhardt predicted it all [0] a few years ago. [0] https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...

Seems like the obvious next step is using WebAssembly outside the browser so we can really go full-circle on this one EDIT: some quick googling shows it's already being done https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a-webas...

Yup. In addition to JavaScript runtimes that have added WebAssembly support, such as Node, there are dedicated WebAssembly runtimes, like wasmtime: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime

If you want to provide a plugin or extension interface, and want to give those plugins a limited interface rather than making them all-powerful, embedding a WebAssembly runtime gives you all of that plus the ability for people to easily write plugins in any language.

Also see https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/08/webassembly-interface-type... for an illustrated description of how that'll work smoothly across languages.

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#77

Post by jchw »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #51
vanderZwan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you knew about [x], there's nothing surprising about [y] You are technically correct, but at the same time I do think this way of framing it is selling Gary Bernhardt a little bit short. There is still an uncanny part in knowing all the right things at the right time to predict the future.

"The future will be just like the past, but with a different name". I guess it's just as accurate when Gary Bernhardt says it as when everyone else says it. It's not exactly a theme that's gone overlooked before. But still... executing bytecode in the browser goes way, way, way, way back.

It’s not just executing code in the browser. It’s been a while since I’ve watched the video but its more about JavaScript becoming the universal assembly language. I think at least that aspect is wrong because Wasm came into existence. But ignoring that detail and subbing in Wasm for JS, it’s uncanny.

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#78

Post by BlueTemplar »

goatlover wrote: post #23
zamalek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be hard (maybe not impossible) to access the DOM in WA without a GC making sure everything is sound, because the DOM and JS (meaning the GC) are very coupled. Currently, JS is used as a mediator between the two - so you do need some JS (but it could well be JS that you never have to write yourself). I recall one of the spec authors saying in an HN thread that a GC would be added eventually, back in the infan…

> because the DOM and JS (meaning the GC) are very coupled. This wasn't the intention when the script tag was introduced. It's interesting that the web standardized on one programming language.

What other languages do modern browsers support in the script tag?

Re: WebAssembly becomes a W3C Recommendation

#79

Post by kllrnohj »

Does anyone have any good success stories with WebAssembly in the actual context of using it on the web? That list of testimonials doesn't seem very inspiring as to whether or not the standard has seen actual production usage to justify being a recommended standard...
Post reply on HN