3 ms·
That sounds very reasonable to me but if my (very limited) understanding of WebAssembly is correct then it's mainly meant as a target for compilers, not somethi
by simias 8y ago
That sounds very reasonable to me but if my (very limited) understanding of WebAssembly is correct then it's mainly meant as a target for compilers, not something you'd routinely write yourself unless you wanted very tight control over the code or maybe micro-optimizations, as such it doesn't make a lot of sense to object to certain feature from a code maintainability/language ergonomics point of view IMO.
I'm not saying anything about what WebAssembly should or shouldn't look like, I haven't got the faintest idea about that, I was just criticizing the argument of the parent about the "nastiness" of goto that felt out of place in this context. If 99.99% of all wasm code is generated by compilers then it should mostly aim at providing a target that lets compiler output efficient code, not something that would be nice for humans to write or add arbitrary limitations to prevent coders from writing "nasty" code.
- willtim 8y ago> it's mainly meant as a target for compilers, not something you'd routinely write yourself Yes absolutely. That's why they should not cave in to pressure to add semantically redundant features just to make a particular project or application slightly more convenient. In order to meet the objectives of easy to define and easy to optimise, it will be necessary to agree on a core set of foundational primitives and stick to them.