3 ms·
Why will WebAssembly applications be less inspectable? JS applications are already aggressively minified multi-megabyte blobs.
by TazeTSchnitzel 6y ago
Why will WebAssembly applications be less inspectable? JS applications are already aggressively minified multi-megabyte blobs.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI can take a look at a minified piece of JS after reformatting, and quickly guess what many of the functions do just by their shape. I won't be able to do that anywhere as easily with a piece of decompiled bytecode, especially if it went through an optimization pass.
- derefr 6y agoThe re-prettification of the minified code doesn't have identifiers, except for the calls to the browser runtime. Unless you use a source map, in which case it does. The decompiled WASM doesn't have identifiers, except for the calls to the browser runtime. Unless you use a source map, in which case it does. Not really seeing the difference. Minified/"uglified" JS—and especially obfuscated JS (where "minification" and "obfuscation" are frequently aligned interests, so most libraries incidentally do both)—is already "a bytecode for the browser virtual machine", just a highly-redundant encoding of one.