WebAssembly Support Begins Materializing In Multiple Browsers

[phoronix]

Phoronix: WebAssembly Support Begins Materializing In Multiple Browsers

WebAssembly, the year-old effort for creating a low-level programming language for in-browser client-side scripting with cross-browser support is making more progress...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...embly-15-March

[Cape]

This is a sad news... hope a major bug strikes this shit in multiple browsers before it gets released to the public.

At least is good to see Mozilla not being ready with this crap.

[Creak]

This is a sad news... hope a major bug strikes this shit in multiple browsers before it gets released to the public.

At least is good to see Mozilla not being ready with this crap.

Whaaaaaat?

[ssokolow]

This is a sad news... hope a major bug strikes this shit in multiple browsers before it gets released to the public.

At least is good to see Mozilla not being ready with this crap.

Bad news in what way? Depending on how you look at it, it's either a non-proprietary alternative to Google's Portable Native Client (PNaCl) or Mozilla's decided that defending the fiction that Emscripten outputs JavaScript isn't worth the overhead of parsing its textual form.

As an example of the latter case:

Measuring AngryBots compile time on a 16×2.4Ghz core Linux desktop, WebAssembly reduces compile time by about 52%. That’s a good start and leverages the fact that WebAssembly decoding is currently about 10× faster than asm.js parsing, but cold load time can be significantly further reduced by working on the other parts of the compilation pipeline.

I'm hoping this will make it much more viable for me to write the client-side JavaScript bits of my web apps in Rust so I can get compile-time checks more robust than TypeScript offers.

[FLHerne]

Very nice - JS has grown on me, but I still don't really like writing in it.

Client-side Python, one step closer!

[zman0900]

Bad news in what way? Depending on how you look at it, it's either a non-proprietary alternative to Google's Portable Native Client (PNaCl) or Mozilla's decided that defending the fiction that Emscripten outputs JavaScript isn't worth the overhead of parsing its textual form.

I'm a bit concerned about running binary blobs from random websites. As least with javascript you could see the source if you really wanted to.

[FLHerne]

Sarcasm?

Doubt it, this is Phoronix after all.

[Kver]

I'm a bit concerned about running binary blobs from random websites. As least with javascript you could see the source if you really wanted to.

I hate this argument and I need to strike it down now.

Open google.com, view the source. Please, tell me what function "_.bh" does in meaningful words. Don't forget to tell me about the functions it's calling and the variables it references, we need to know everything it does to be safe!

[Serafean]

I hate this argument and I need to strike it down now.

Me too. Let me say it my way :

"I'm a bit concerned about running binary blobs from random websites."
I guess noscript will have to expand to noWA.

[Maxjen]

I'm a bit concerned about running binary blobs from random websites. As least with javascript you could see the source if you really wanted to.

You can do that with WebAssembly as well. And it will be easier to read than asm.js.

Source:
https://github.com/WebAssembly/desig...rce-on-the-web