3 ms·
The possibility of WebAssembly becoming tangled with complicated web browsers worries me. Whatever DOM manipulation there may be in the future, I hope there'll
by vardump 8y ago
The possibility of WebAssembly becoming tangled with complicated web browsers worries me.
Whatever DOM manipulation there may be in the future, I hope there'll be no tight coupling with DOM, GC or anything else.
If tight coupling can be avoided, WebAssembly could become lingua franca of binary formats also outside web.
For things like architecture agnostic plugins, extensions and high performance light weight "scripting" support.
- DonHopkins 8y agoI think the point is to integrate WebAssembly with JavaScript objects in general, not the DOM API in particular. Nothing to do with web browsers, everything to do with JavaScript.
- steveklabnik 8y agoIt's called the "host bindings" proposal because the proposal is to create bindings to the host environemnt; for a browser that's the DOM, for for any other host, it could be other things. It's not tightly coupled to them.
- vardump 8y ago> It's not tightly coupled to them. Hopefully it'll stay that way. Dependencies on DOM or Javascript would be devastating for WebAssembly use outside web browsers.
- steveklabnik 8y agoEveryone[1] who works on wasm cares about the non-browser use-case, so I think you can sleep easy here. 1: Okay so, what I really mean is, "I spend a lot of time talking to people working on WebAssembly and they've all expressed that to me but of course I hvaen't talked to literally every single last person".