4 ms·

The 'WASM is the new flash' argument only succeeds if you conflate at least all of WASM, canvas, webgl, webaudio, websockets and several other APIs and call it

The 'WASM is the new flash' argument only succeeds if you conflate at least all of WASM, canvas, webgl, webaudio, websockets and several other APIs and call it all 'WASM.' That is misleading in my mind. All of this stuff was developed independently of WASM and is usable without WASM. > It is meaningless to say that WASM is different because of this. Flash can and did extend the browser in arbitrary ways. WASM is operating within a standards regime and relies on standards based capabilities. We need not worry, for instance, that WASM is going to independently implement an API for some peripheral (camera, microphone, etc.) that duplicates or supplants some existing, standards based browser capability. While that remains true there is a demonstrative difference.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
> The 'WASM is the new flash' argument only succeeds if you conflate at least all of WASM, canvas, webgl, webaudio, websockets and several other APIs and call it all 'WASM.' I think it is disingenuous not to include these features, because they didn't exist in any form when Java and Flash where big. > Flash can and did extend the browser in arbitrary ways. WASM is operating within a standards regime and relies on standards based capabilities. Yes, it did, because it had to. The features WASM is relying on for similar functionality did not exist at the time, there was literally no other way to do it. So your argument is that WASM is different because now, nearly 20 years later, these features are part of the standard web.
- topspin 8y ago
  > I think it is disingenuous not to include these features Before you ever heard the term "WASM" all of "these features" were available via plain old HTML5 and Javascript. Since that is the case why not argue that browsers themselves are the new Flash? And if so, what does WASM have to do with it? The answer to the last question is "nothing." "These features" did not have their origin in WASM. They existed prior to WASM and function independently of WASM because they do not depend on WASM. They are not WASM. Full stop. Conflating them all into WASM is, in fact, disingenuous.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    I suppose that's a fair perspective, but really what you're doing here is being pedantic. WASM is just the final step in integrating something like Flash or Java into the browser. That it took 20 years of standards adoption to get there isn't really relevant in my opinion.
    - topspin 8y ago
      Equating 20 years of open standards development to a proprietary extension will never add up in my book. If that's pedantry then so be it.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Even if it's twenty years of open standards that replicates the functionality of a proprietary extension? That it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make sense to me.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

> The 'WASM is the new flash' argument only succeeds if you conflate at least all of WASM, canvas, webgl, webaudio, websockets and several other APIs and call it all 'WASM.' I think it is disingenuous not to include these features, because they didn't exist in any form when Java and Flash where big. > Flash can and did extend the browser in arbitrary ways. WASM is operating within a standards regime and relies on standards based capabilities. Yes, it did, because it had to. The features WASM is relying on for similar functionality did not exist at the time, there was literally no other way to do it. So your argument is that WASM is different because now, nearly 20 years later, these features are part of the standard web.

topspin 8y ago
> I think it is disingenuous not to include these features Before you ever heard the term "WASM" all of "these features" were available via plain old HTML5 and Javascript. Since that is the case why not argue that browsers themselves are the new Flash? And if so, what does WASM have to do with it? The answer to the last question is "nothing." "These features" did not have their origin in WASM. They existed prior to WASM and function independently of WASM because they do not depend on WASM. They are not WASM. Full stop. Conflating them all into WASM is, in fact, disingenuous.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  I suppose that's a fair perspective, but really what you're doing here is being pedantic. WASM is just the final step in integrating something like Flash or Java into the browser. That it took 20 years of standards adoption to get there isn't really relevant in my opinion.
  - topspin 8y ago
    Equating 20 years of open standards development to a proprietary extension will never add up in my book. If that's pedantry then so be it.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Even if it's twenty years of open standards that replicates the functionality of a proprietary extension? That it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make sense to me.