3 ms·
A little disappointed not to see https://www.assemblyscript.org/ https://www.assemblyscript.org/ included in the discussion. Especially since it removes the "Ja
by chickenpotpie 6y ago
A little disappointed not to see https://www.assemblyscript.org/ https://www.assemblyscript.org/ included in the discussion. Especially since it removes the "JavaScript is slower than WASM" argument.
- titzer 6y agoI'm not quite sure what you mean here, because AssemblyScript compiles to WASM, not JS.
- iCarrot 6y agoI guess the argument was that you can write in JS (well, something that is close to TypeScript which is close to JS anyway) and compile to WASM, therefore the speed argument becomes invalid.
- toastal 6y agoWhy would you be disappointed? The author wanted more from the type system and didn't care if they were going to switch syntax. Seems like AssemblyScripts biggest 'selling point' is that it looks like TypeScript.