You don't become a successful business owner this many times over by lying to people.
Yes you do. Once you've established a cult of personality you have a built-in base of retail investors who will believe and defend anything you say.
Sure.
Eric Schmidt sees a declining birthrate as a crisis
There's an easy solution for that. Just have an open marriage and invest in your girlfriend's business. Then when that goes sour move on to the next one.
Why do you propose to replace a JavaScript runtime with a byte code runtime?
The WebAssembly runtime is already in all browsers. WebAssembly achieves higher performance and brings all languages to the web.
would need a way to put a JavaScript to Web assembly tool into their tool chain
No. JavaScript is already in the browser. JavaScript will live on as a scripting language. Application development will continue with other languages.
WebAssembly is a byte code.
Yes, that's how many languages can be compiled to it.
No point fighting it. Just relax into it.
That's no advantage. That's JavaScript reduced to automatically generated glue code.
Eventual direct DOM access for WebAssembly will remove JavaScript's glue code role.
Try some C# WebAssembly. Write and run Visual Basic 6: https://bandysc.github.io/Aval...
The article is about replacing a heavy weight JS VM with a light weight one.
Yes, their time will be better spent optimizing WebAssembly and building out more WebAssembly infrastructure.
And the trolls hop around and yell: web assembly!
No troll. WebAssembly is the future. No point clinging to the JavaScript past.
Why would I not use Flutter for that (if it would work as promised)??
Of course you'd use Flutter. Dart and Flutter compile to WebAssembly for better performance: https://tech.appunite.com/blog...
You do not get higher performance.
Of course you do. Google got double the performance. They ported JavaScript to Java: https://web.dev/case-studies/g...
Amazon got double the performance. They ported JavaScript to Rust: https://www.amazon.science/blo...
Write the same function in JavaScript and C and watch WebAssembly outperform JavaScript: https://jeromewu.github.io/imp...
Introduces new bugs. For no reason.
Code reuse reduces bugs. Figma compiled their C++ engine to WebAssembly and they love it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
which language do you port it too? C?
Whichever language you want. WebAssembly brings all languages to the web.
> *Web developers will instead have their JS/TS and their toolchain for compiling a typescript variant of Javascript to Webassembly for higher performance.*
Yes, WebAssembly brings all languages to the web. A compiled TypeScript can skip JavaScript and go straight to WebAssembly compilation.
> *And the sheer number of Javascript modules available through NPM, etc.*
In the WebAssembly component model, any module compiled from any language can by used by a module compiled from any other language.
You're getting emotional. Try not to worry about it so much. You'll come around. WebAssembly will welcome you with open arms when you do.
It's not about power, it's about practicality. If you want a high performing, portable application running in the browser and on the server WebAssembly is the way to get it.
JavaScript has had 29 years, coming up to 30 years in December. It's been a good run for the Visual Basic of the web, but WebAssembly is here now. WebAssembly is simply a better way to build.
No need to get emotional about it.
Everyone wants higher performance. WebAssembly gets it for you.
It's why Amazon shifted to WebAsembly for Prime Video: https://www.amazon.science/blo...
It's why Google is shifting to WebAssembly for Google Sheets: https://web.dev/case-studies/g...
It's why WebAssembly is a better fit for serverless functions: https://thenewstack.io/should-...
No point hanging on to the past. Embrace the future.
No, it's growing tech with higher performance than JavaScript can achieve.
JavaScript will survive for small scripting. WebAssembly is the way to build applications.
To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.
