3 ms·
Sorry, my intent was not to imply that web assembly was hateful or abusive but that the code I might write using it falls into two categories 1. Performance cr
by c0nfused 11y ago
Sorry, my intent was not to imply that web assembly was hateful or abusive but that the code I might write using it falls into two categories
1. Performance critical code
2. Sneaky stuff I really don't want the user to be able to read.
Category two seems like the sort of thing that I would absolutely want to be able to write binary code that executes without user interaction.
It seems like right now the focus is quite rightly on #1, but that #2 seems like it will inevitably become an issue.
- ghthor 11y ago> 2. Sneaky stuff I really don't want the user to be able to read. The user is already going to have a hard time reading the unuglified JS. If they are looking for "phoning home" they have to search for WebSocket sends and ajax calls. Both of those will have well defined APIs that will be just as easy to spot in dissembled webasm as they are in unuglified JS. I bet they'll be even easier to spot.
- Sanddancer 11y agoYou're missing category 3: Code that runs in more than a browser. If I have code written in Fortran that already solves my problem, why should I have to rewrite it? If I'm more comfortable in C#, why should I be forced to use Javascript for writing front-end code? WebAssembly fixes the mistake that the web should be a monoculture, and allows people to use the best language for the job.
- sklogic 11y ago3. Any other code written in a language better than JS.