11 ms·
One other big difference is that it's not owned by a single private company. Adobe tried to monetize certain flash 3d features at some point, but was rebuked so
by Drakim 8y ago
One other big difference is that it's not owned by a single private company. Adobe tried to monetize certain flash 3d features at some point, but was rebuked so they withdrew their plans.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoAlright, I'll give them that. However, I think this will, like it has with the rest of the web, lead to differences in how each browser handles the spec, various browser-specific extensions, etc. In that way, it's actually worse than having one company behind it.
- rusk 8y agoThe JS community currently deals with this by way of "polyfills" I wonder will such an approach be easier or harder with WASM ...
- zaarn 8y agoAny differing behaviour from the spec is supposed to be behind feature flags so that WASM Applications can reliably detect and use these.
- j45 8y agoWasm is the first major thing I can remember all the browsers agreeing on in a very long time, or ever. Agreeing of course, after trying to do it on their own and then realizing they were thinking a lot of the same things.
- SquareWheel 8y ago>Wasm is the first major thing I can remember all the browsers agreeing on in a very long time, or ever. Uh, flexbox, grid, fetch, service workers, even shadow DOM...? The cooperation between browser vendors has been exceptional over the last five years.
- j45 8y agoAre any of those as large and potentially as broad as wasm?
- SquareWheel 8y agoFor frontend devs, sure.