5 ms·

>Nobody wants to hand-write wasm, you need a tooling pipeline to make that type of development workflow practical, Yes and nothing about the Babel or typescrip

>Nobody wants to hand-write wasm, you need a tooling pipeline to make that type of development workflow practical, Yes and nothing about the Babel or typescript or node was required for the creation of wasm or a wasm compiler. People complain about churn in the JS ecosystem because of the rate that frameworks and tooling rise and then fall out of favor. I don't see the irony at all in people complaining about one ecosystem while being excited that they are being given a way to bypass that ecosystem all together.

root_axis 6y ago
> People complain about churn in the JS ecosystem because of the rate that frameworks and tooling rise and then fall out of favor. And building web pages with rust is just another example of this phenomenon, its ironic because somehow its viewed as a positive thing by people who commonly complain about the introduction of new tools into web development ecosystem, but the power of rust hype somehow obscures the fact that this is exactly the same thing such detractors always complain about. For the record, I love rust and wasm and think this is great, but I have always been opposed to the framing that people creating new web development tools is a bad thing.
- nurettin 6y ago
  > have always been opposed to the framing that people creating new web development tools is a bad thing. You mean you support the creation of a new JS UI framework every other week? Or is this about something else?
  - root_axis 6y ago
    Yes, I support developers doing whatever they want and releasing it to the commons for all to benefit from if they so choose. If that means "a new framework every week" then it is what it is, I don't see the problem with that. Just because someone wrote some code and put it on the internet doesn't mean you have to use it.
    - nurettin 6y ago
      I am for the same thing, except when it specifically means a new JS UI framework every week. Nobody needs that.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > Nobody needs that. You have no idea what people need when they decide to create whatever is they want to create, if you don't want to use it you don't have to.
        nurettin 6y ago
        That's the problem. Since I have no idea, I have to attend a meeting at the start of the week to discuss whether I need it or not with the staff because everyone wants the next hot thing. It isn't a coding culture or freedom problem as you put it, but rather a corporate space problem and much more often than not, it just causes unproductivity.
- emsy 6y ago
  The problem is not creating new web development tools but creating them for the sake of creating them. And what’s worse is people end up using them out of fear to fall behind. People complained about Maven that you first have to „download the internet“ to run a build. This is even more true for npm. In the meantime there are still native apps written in C and makefiles that work just fine. Also, wasm is just a new compilation target for Rust. This means if you know Rust you can write web apps. You have to learn less. With a new tool you have to learn usage, syntax and idiosyncrasies.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > The problem is not creating new web development tools but creating them for the sake of creating them. Why is that a problem and who is the arbiter of merit with regard to publishing code to the internet? I can't see any other way to parse what you've written other than "people should stop making so much stuff" > wasm is just a new compilation target for Rust And the vast majority of the js ecosystem is just compilation targets for js, if anything rust seems even further removed from the web ecosystem since web applications typically don't require low level performance.
- danShumway 6y ago
  Agreed. I'm also completely onboard with what Rust is doing here. Language choice is fantastic, I think opening up the web to multiple programming languages is going to be very good for the web as an ecosystem. But at the same time -- To all the people complaining that modern web browsers are too complicated for small teams to build and maintain, do you think WASM helped with that at all? To all the people complaining that Javascript's lack of an extensive standard library makes it hard to quickly read/grok other people's code on Github, do you think that situation is going to get any better when people are using entirely separate languages to program the same webapps? To all the people complaining that there are too many frameworks and tools being released for the web to keep up with, do you think that's going to get any better when suddenly every programmer and their dog can start porting any Open Source UI toolkit/framework to the web with low-cost DOM bindings?
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > To all the people complaining that modern web browsers are too complicated for small teams to build and maintain, do you think WASM helped with that at all Absolutley not. I love rust and would be happy to live in a world where I could write rust in any place where I would typically use typescript or babel or coffeescript back in the day, but none of that is going to be possible without an entire stack of tooling similar to that which already exists for the js-targeted ecosystem, and I have no problem with that, but people who ostensibly dislike "churn" claim to have a problem with new tooling and new solutions for building web pages and this is exactly the promise of wasm. If anything, wasm represents the biggest shift in "churn" in the history of web development since it opens the door to dozens of new languages and frameworks that were previously impossible to use for web development.
  - Risord 6y ago
    > To all the people complaining that modern web browsers are too complicated for small teams to build and maintain, do you think WASM helped with that at all? Kind of yes. For simple browser as a general application platform you need a simple base technology where much can be shipped as library level. It would be fun to see WASM only browser with JS and CSS layouting solutions run as WASM compiled libraries. So in theory WASM could be used as a first step to more simple browser but in practise it's propably just a fantasy.
- learc83 6y ago
  People complain that the JavaScript ecosystem changes too frequently. It is perfectly logical to believe that this is true, while simultaneously believing that allowing new language ecosystems to target the browser, could result in a new ecosystem that is much more conservative and changes at a slower pace than the JS ecosystem for whatever reason (a language with a larger standard library, a language with a different culture etc...). A one time change to another ecosystem and then a slower pace of changes. Who knows if this is will be the case, but it is a logically consistent position to hold, and there's nothing ironic about it.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    It's not logically consistent. Why does it matter whether the tooling compiles down to js or wasm, if anything, expanding the web development ecosystem to include dozens of new languages and frameworks will increase "churn" as many new approaches become popularized on the front-page of HN. It's absolutely no different than a new js framework.
    - FridgeSeal 6y ago
      Not being JS, and therefore not having to deal with all the traps that it contains is a pretty big point of difference. It also provides a boost to other languages, which I think is good, there's no really good reason why JS should continue to be the only browser 'blessed' language.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > therefore not having to deal with all the traps that it contains is a pretty big point of difference. The primary complaint expressed regarding front-end churn is that the landscape is confusing because there is too much tooling and too many options and that they're unnecessary and that people should just use JS, if you're saying "not having to deal" with js is a positive thing then you're implicitly saying "churn" is not a problem since "not having to deal with js" is the only reason that "churn" exists in the first place. Either "churn" is bad and something like rust-to-web is another example of unnecessary tools complicating the landscape or tooling that helps to avoid the warts of js is a good thing and "churn" is a non-issue; you can't have it both ways.

root_axis 6y ago

> People complain about churn in the JS ecosystem because of the rate that frameworks and tooling rise and then fall out of favor. And building web pages with rust is just another example of this phenomenon, its ironic because somehow its viewed as a positive thing by people who commonly complain about the introduction of new tools into web development ecosystem, but the power of rust hype somehow obscures the fact that this is exactly the same thing such detractors always complain about. For the record, I love rust and wasm and think this is great, but I have always been opposed to the framing that people creating new web development tools is a bad thing.

nurettin 6y ago
> have always been opposed to the framing that people creating new web development tools is a bad thing. You mean you support the creation of a new JS UI framework every other week? Or is this about something else?
- root_axis 6y ago
  Yes, I support developers doing whatever they want and releasing it to the commons for all to benefit from if they so choose. If that means "a new framework every week" then it is what it is, I don't see the problem with that. Just because someone wrote some code and put it on the internet doesn't mean you have to use it.
  - nurettin 6y ago
    I am for the same thing, except when it specifically means a new JS UI framework every week. Nobody needs that.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > Nobody needs that. You have no idea what people need when they decide to create whatever is they want to create, if you don't want to use it you don't have to.
      - nurettin 6y ago
        That's the problem. Since I have no idea, I have to attend a meeting at the start of the week to discuss whether I need it or not with the staff because everyone wants the next hot thing. It isn't a coding culture or freedom problem as you put it, but rather a corporate space problem and much more often than not, it just causes unproductivity.
emsy 6y ago
The problem is not creating new web development tools but creating them for the sake of creating them. And what’s worse is people end up using them out of fear to fall behind. People complained about Maven that you first have to „download the internet“ to run a build. This is even more true for npm. In the meantime there are still native apps written in C and makefiles that work just fine. Also, wasm is just a new compilation target for Rust. This means if you know Rust you can write web apps. You have to learn less. With a new tool you have to learn usage, syntax and idiosyncrasies.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > The problem is not creating new web development tools but creating them for the sake of creating them. Why is that a problem and who is the arbiter of merit with regard to publishing code to the internet? I can't see any other way to parse what you've written other than "people should stop making so much stuff" > wasm is just a new compilation target for Rust And the vast majority of the js ecosystem is just compilation targets for js, if anything rust seems even further removed from the web ecosystem since web applications typically don't require low level performance.
danShumway 6y ago
Agreed. I'm also completely onboard with what Rust is doing here. Language choice is fantastic, I think opening up the web to multiple programming languages is going to be very good for the web as an ecosystem. But at the same time -- To all the people complaining that modern web browsers are too complicated for small teams to build and maintain, do you think WASM helped with that at all? To all the people complaining that Javascript's lack of an extensive standard library makes it hard to quickly read/grok other people's code on Github, do you think that situation is going to get any better when people are using entirely separate languages to program the same webapps? To all the people complaining that there are too many frameworks and tools being released for the web to keep up with, do you think that's going to get any better when suddenly every programmer and their dog can start porting any Open Source UI toolkit/framework to the web with low-cost DOM bindings?
- root_axis 6y ago
  > To all the people complaining that modern web browsers are too complicated for small teams to build and maintain, do you think WASM helped with that at all Absolutley not. I love rust and would be happy to live in a world where I could write rust in any place where I would typically use typescript or babel or coffeescript back in the day, but none of that is going to be possible without an entire stack of tooling similar to that which already exists for the js-targeted ecosystem, and I have no problem with that, but people who ostensibly dislike "churn" claim to have a problem with new tooling and new solutions for building web pages and this is exactly the promise of wasm. If anything, wasm represents the biggest shift in "churn" in the history of web development since it opens the door to dozens of new languages and frameworks that were previously impossible to use for web development.
- Risord 6y ago
  > To all the people complaining that modern web browsers are too complicated for small teams to build and maintain, do you think WASM helped with that at all? Kind of yes. For simple browser as a general application platform you need a simple base technology where much can be shipped as library level. It would be fun to see WASM only browser with JS and CSS layouting solutions run as WASM compiled libraries. So in theory WASM could be used as a first step to more simple browser but in practise it's propably just a fantasy.
learc83 6y ago
People complain that the JavaScript ecosystem changes too frequently. It is perfectly logical to believe that this is true, while simultaneously believing that allowing new language ecosystems to target the browser, could result in a new ecosystem that is much more conservative and changes at a slower pace than the JS ecosystem for whatever reason (a language with a larger standard library, a language with a different culture etc...). A one time change to another ecosystem and then a slower pace of changes. Who knows if this is will be the case, but it is a logically consistent position to hold, and there's nothing ironic about it.
- root_axis 6y ago
  It's not logically consistent. Why does it matter whether the tooling compiles down to js or wasm, if anything, expanding the web development ecosystem to include dozens of new languages and frameworks will increase "churn" as many new approaches become popularized on the front-page of HN. It's absolutely no different than a new js framework.
  - FridgeSeal 6y ago
    Not being JS, and therefore not having to deal with all the traps that it contains is a pretty big point of difference. It also provides a boost to other languages, which I think is good, there's no really good reason why JS should continue to be the only browser 'blessed' language.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > therefore not having to deal with all the traps that it contains is a pretty big point of difference. The primary complaint expressed regarding front-end churn is that the landscape is confusing because there is too much tooling and too many options and that they're unnecessary and that people should just use JS, if you're saying "not having to deal" with js is a positive thing then you're implicitly saying "churn" is not a problem since "not having to deal with js" is the only reason that "churn" exists in the first place. Either "churn" is bad and something like rust-to-web is another example of unnecessary tools complicating the landscape or tooling that helps to avoid the warts of js is a good thing and "churn" is a non-issue; you can't have it both ways.