3 ms·
That's a better fit for Scala imo. ScalaJS is great as is, and I'm sure a wasm Scala backend would be amazing. Rust is way too low-level for that imo. It works
by Cyph0n 10y ago
That's a better fit for Scala imo. ScalaJS is great as is, and I'm sure a wasm Scala backend would be amazing.
Rust is way too low-level for that imo. It works for Emscripten because of legacy code, but Rust is still ways off in that regard (i.e. adoption).
- danjoc 10y agoMy impression was that wasm doesn't provide GC. Since Scala needs GC, Rust seems better positioned to have a first mover advantage.
- Cyph0n 10y agoI did not know that. There is work being done in this area through the Scala Native project, so it's still feasible.
- kodablah 10y agoHaving attempted this "isomorphism" across Scala and ScalaJS, it is not quite that easy. That goes for all setups (node -> JS, Java -> GWT, etc) that I have tried. There are a lot of what some might call "impedance mismatches" between the two targets especially when it comes to communication and DOM work. IMO only frameworks/middleware built to bridge the gap will make it seamless.
- premium-concern 10y agoIn my experience Scala(.js) works way better than "(node -> JS, Java -> GWT, etc)". There is a large gap between those and the way Scala _just works_ across platforms. The huge difference is that you can depend on libraries and have them "just work" regardless of whether they are implemented identical on each platform, or need specific variations to implement the expected features. Neither JS/Node nor Java/GWT have that.