4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoEquating 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 agoEven 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.