5 ms·

"This masking strategy would in turn require a power-of-two related memory size, and there has been a lot of resistance to this too." A more appropriate title

• junke 11y ago
  From https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly : > The mission of this group is to promote early-stage cross-browser collaboration on a new, portable, size- and load-time-efficient format suitable for compilation to the web. See also https://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Templates/CG_Charter#Decision_Process https://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Templates/CG_Chart.... This is a collaborative work where people can make suggestions (I cannot judge if the proposal was fairly evaluated or not). > WebAssembly team doesn't want to listen my ideas on how WebAssembly should work. Your title implies that the WebAssembly team has the best knowledge and/or expertise to develop WebAssembly. They are probably expert in their own domain but are willing to take advice from other contributors.
  • zaro 11y ago
    Please read this quote again: "This masking strategy would in turn require a power-of-two related memory size, and there has been a lot of resistance to this too." And try to think about the implications it has on the memory model of the VM that is going to execute/JIT Webassemly. A power of two memory model, isn't really viable at this level I think. And you don't need to think a lot about it, to figure out that jumping to 256MB memory, just because your app/page needs 130MB is a bit of counter-optimization :) The resistance is the sensible thing to do in this case :)