4 ms·

I like that he offers solutions but honestly, more people are vision impaired than have javascript disabled so instead of doing all that work instead put it fir

I like that he offers solutions but honestly, more people are vision impaired than have javascript disabled so instead of doing all that work instead put it first on helping people with disabilities. > There is a danger that more and more sites will require JavaScript to render any content at all. What danger, exactly? While some sites that don't require a lot of js is nice you will soon notice that many sites you want js on. Music streaming services is one example. I build api based sites nowdays because of mainly two reasons: 1. They feel more rapid after initial load and gives the user a better experience. 2. You can use the same api for web and mobile experiences. I personally think that WebAssembly is the future so the web will finally just be another compilation target and I can't wait for it to be wide spread.

wgerard 8y ago
> I personally think that WebAssembly is the future so the web will finally just be another compilation target and I can't wait for it to be wide spread. Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. I've only done toy projects with WebAssembly, so I could easily be missing something, but it seems to be: 1) Overkill for most websites 2) Significantly more complicated than current web development - which is saying something given the explosion in complexity of recent web development practices Obviously #2 can be lessened as time goes on, but it's hard for me to imagine #1 ever being false. It's great for performance-sensitive applications like games, but it doesn't seem to offer much benefit for CRUD apps or static sites.
- gramstrong 8y ago
  Maybe it's overkill, but hardly anymore than the V8 engine is for most websites. Compilation to WebAssembly will be at zero or little cost to the developer, so it shouldn't matter either way.
zeveb 8y ago
> I personally think that WebAssembly is the future so the web will finally just be another compilation target and I can't wait for it to be wide spread. I really hope not. I don't believe we've seen the last of exploits like Spectre & Meltdown. Allowing anyone in the world to execute code on the same machine whose memory contains your bank accounts, your private memos, your passwords &c. will, I hope, come to be seen as riskier & riskier as time goes on.
- jrvidal 8y ago
  I think your fears are a bit misguided. WebAssembly runs within the same sandbox as JavaScript code. I don't see how this would constitute a _higher_ security risk than browsers as they stand today.
  - zeveb 8y ago
    WebAssembly isn't a higher risk than JavaScript — what's a higher risk is increasing the use of JavaScript and/or WebAssembly. I fear that in the not-too-distant future web pages will simply be blobs of WebAssembly which paint UIs within a browser, and general-purpose computers will have become TV terminals — but TV terminals which allow the modern equivalents of networks & newspapers to steal one's private information.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >I fear that in the not-too-distant future web pages will simply be blobs of WebAssembly which paint UIs within a browser, Some will, probably, but there's no reason all web pages will go that way. "App" type sites almost certainly, maybe streaming services, but the benefit just isn't worth the cost for most sites. It didn't happen with Java, it didn't happen with Flash, it didn't happen with Silverlight, it didn't even happen with javascript even though it's possible to publish an entire web UI as an obfuscated "javascript blob" that writes on a canvas. It hasn't happened now that most people surf the web on walled garden Android phones, arguably the antithesis of a "general purpose computer" and closer to the "TV terminal" you described. Why is Webassembly the straw that will break the web's back? If almost no one actually wants to build the dystopian scenario you're afraid of, and doing so would probably be impossible, why be afraid of it?
2RTZZSro 8y ago
If WebAssembly is the future for large consulting gigs

wgerard 8y ago

> I personally think that WebAssembly is the future so the web will finally just be another compilation target and I can't wait for it to be wide spread. Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. I've only done toy projects with WebAssembly, so I could easily be missing something, but it seems to be: 1) Overkill for most websites 2) Significantly more complicated than current web development - which is saying something given the explosion in complexity of recent web development practices Obviously #2 can be lessened as time goes on, but it's hard for me to imagine #1 ever being false. It's great for performance-sensitive applications like games, but it doesn't seem to offer much benefit for CRUD apps or static sites.

gramstrong 8y ago
Maybe it's overkill, but hardly anymore than the V8 engine is for most websites. Compilation to WebAssembly will be at zero or little cost to the developer, so it shouldn't matter either way.

zeveb 8y ago

> I personally think that WebAssembly is the future so the web will finally just be another compilation target and I can't wait for it to be wide spread. I really hope not. I don't believe we've seen the last of exploits like Spectre & Meltdown. Allowing anyone in the world to execute code on the same machine whose memory contains your bank accounts, your private memos, your passwords &c. will, I hope, come to be seen as riskier & riskier as time goes on.

jrvidal 8y ago
I think your fears are a bit misguided. WebAssembly runs within the same sandbox as JavaScript code. I don't see how this would constitute a _higher_ security risk than browsers as they stand today.
- zeveb 8y ago
  WebAssembly isn't a higher risk than JavaScript — what's a higher risk is increasing the use of JavaScript and/or WebAssembly. I fear that in the not-too-distant future web pages will simply be blobs of WebAssembly which paint UIs within a browser, and general-purpose computers will have become TV terminals — but TV terminals which allow the modern equivalents of networks & newspapers to steal one's private information.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >I fear that in the not-too-distant future web pages will simply be blobs of WebAssembly which paint UIs within a browser, Some will, probably, but there's no reason all web pages will go that way. "App" type sites almost certainly, maybe streaming services, but the benefit just isn't worth the cost for most sites. It didn't happen with Java, it didn't happen with Flash, it didn't happen with Silverlight, it didn't even happen with javascript even though it's possible to publish an entire web UI as an obfuscated "javascript blob" that writes on a canvas. It hasn't happened now that most people surf the web on walled garden Android phones, arguably the antithesis of a "general purpose computer" and closer to the "TV terminal" you described. Why is Webassembly the straw that will break the web's back? If almost no one actually wants to build the dystopian scenario you're afraid of, and doing so would probably be impossible, why be afraid of it?

2RTZZSro 8y ago

If WebAssembly is the future for large consulting gigs