5 ms·

Web assembly gets first class access to browser API's and the DOM, which Applets never did. Applets had virtually zero ability to communicate with the webpage t

Web assembly gets first class access to browser API's and the DOM, which Applets never did. Applets had virtually zero ability to communicate with the webpage they were contained in. This paired with the fact that most users at the time (on Windows) had to download additional nagware to run them, and you have a recipe for disaster. Web assembly is a continuation of JavaScript and ASM JS and is poised to be a much better solution for all parties.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Why would they need the ability to communicate with the webpage they were contained in? They can communicate with themselves. What's the difference between a single-page web application in WebAssembly and a single-page java applet in java bytecode? What's the DOM adding? Suppose I want to run Quake in the browser. Applets already do that. It's not a new idea or a new technology.
- Lio 10y ago
  Well there's a certain consistency to what you can do in a browser. E.g. Opening part of the app in a new tab or searching for things on the page. A soon as you're in flash or an Applet all bets are off. It might work, might not. Its jarring. (Of course this ignores single page apps that deliberately break things like right click, etc.)
- ssalazar 10y ago
  > What's the difference between a single-page web application in WebAssembly and a single-page java applet in java bytecode? What's the DOM adding? With the DOM you don't have to reinvent the numerous wheels it provides (text, images, layout, controls) nor do you have to use the visually inconsistent versions of these applets provided. Java is also owned by Oracle, and was previously owned by Sun, so its development has/will always be directed by the needs of its owners rather than the community at large. > Suppose I want to run Quake in the browser. Applets already do that. I dont think this is the primary motivation for WebAssembly. > It's not a new idea or a new technology. Sure, but there are crucial implementation differences (i.e. DOM interaction), differences in the presentation and culture, and political differences.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

Why would they need the ability to communicate with the webpage they were contained in? They can communicate with themselves. What's the difference between a single-page web application in WebAssembly and a single-page java applet in java bytecode? What's the DOM adding? Suppose I want to run Quake in the browser. Applets already do that. It's not a new idea or a new technology.

Lio 10y ago
Well there's a certain consistency to what you can do in a browser. E.g. Opening part of the app in a new tab or searching for things on the page. A soon as you're in flash or an Applet all bets are off. It might work, might not. Its jarring. (Of course this ignores single page apps that deliberately break things like right click, etc.)
ssalazar 10y ago
> What's the difference between a single-page web application in WebAssembly and a single-page java applet in java bytecode? What's the DOM adding? With the DOM you don't have to reinvent the numerous wheels it provides (text, images, layout, controls) nor do you have to use the visually inconsistent versions of these applets provided. Java is also owned by Oracle, and was previously owned by Sun, so its development has/will always be directed by the needs of its owners rather than the community at large. > Suppose I want to run Quake in the browser. Applets already do that. I dont think this is the primary motivation for WebAssembly. > It's not a new idea or a new technology. Sure, but there are crucial implementation differences (i.e. DOM interaction), differences in the presentation and culture, and political differences.