4 ms·

Not sure why you're downvoted, this is a very interesting talk.

by molf 8y ago

traverseda 8y ago
It's pretty relevant to the discussion of "why would you want to run wasm in the kernel", but I'm not too worried about the votes.
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  It's not, though... WebAssembly doesn't really have all that much to do with js, any more than Flash or Java plugins would if they ended up being standardized instead. Every time there's a wasm thread it gets posted, but it misses the point of the talk to suggest that wasm is the prediction bearing fruit. The talk is great, but I'd suggest that's the reason for the downvotes.
  - earenndil 8y ago
    > it misses the point of the talk to suggest that wasm is the prediction bearing fruit Does it? It seems that the talk has two main points: 1. Javascript succeeded because it was (at least initially) just good enough not to be completely unbearable, but bad enough that people ended up using it primarily as a target for other languages. 2. Ring 0 JIT can be 4% faster that normal binaries. WASM is primarily a target for other languages, and qualifies as a language that can theoretically be JITted 4% faster than native code can be run.
    - reitzensteinm 8y ago
      Point number one isn't applicable to wasm. The execution inside the kernel is related, but nobody replies to a lua in kernel post with a link to the talk.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Because Lua isn't related to Web development, while JavaScript and WASM are.
        reitzensteinm 8y ago
        Right, but that's my point. Wasm is tenuously connected with JavaScript because both are web technologies, so people link the talk. But they couldn't be more different technically, and if wasm does indeed become the lingua franca of future computing it will be much more boring than the craziness of js doing the same. The talk was great because it was about an insane yet plausible future. We now have a boring and probable future.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        I don't believe in that, too much experience to believe in a miracle bytecode format that will magically succeeded where others failed. It will just be yet another VM platform.
        reitzensteinm 8y ago
        Even less reason to link to the talk then :-)

Not sure why you're downvoted, this is a very interesting talk.

by molf 8y ago

Not sure why you're downvoted, this is a very interesting talk.

It's pretty relevant to the discussion of "why would you want to run wasm in the kernel", but I'm not too worried about the votes.

reitzensteinm 8y ago
It's not, though... WebAssembly doesn't really have all that much to do with js, any more than Flash or Java plugins would if they ended up being standardized instead. Every time there's a wasm thread it gets posted, but it misses the point of the talk to suggest that wasm is the prediction bearing fruit. The talk is great, but I'd suggest that's the reason for the downvotes.
- earenndil 8y ago
  > it misses the point of the talk to suggest that wasm is the prediction bearing fruit Does it? It seems that the talk has two main points: 1. Javascript succeeded because it was (at least initially) just good enough not to be completely unbearable, but bad enough that people ended up using it primarily as a target for other languages. 2. Ring 0 JIT can be 4% faster that normal binaries. WASM is primarily a target for other languages, and qualifies as a language that can theoretically be JITted 4% faster than native code can be run.
  - reitzensteinm 8y ago
    Point number one isn't applicable to wasm. The execution inside the kernel is related, but nobody replies to a lua in kernel post with a link to the talk.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Because Lua isn't related to Web development, while JavaScript and WASM are.
      - reitzensteinm 8y ago
        Right, but that's my point. Wasm is tenuously connected with JavaScript because both are web technologies, so people link the talk. But they couldn't be more different technically, and if wasm does indeed become the lingua franca of future computing it will be much more boring than the craziness of js doing the same. The talk was great because it was about an insane yet plausible future. We now have a boring and probable future.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        I don't believe in that, too much experience to believe in a miracle bytecode format that will magically succeeded where others failed. It will just be yet another VM platform.
        reitzensteinm 8y ago
        Even less reason to link to the talk then :-)