3 ms·
>WASM has a long way to go before it is really useful. I disagree. I can already write decent C# applications that run in browser while using already existing
by tester34 6y ago
>WASM has a long way to go before it is really useful.
I disagree.
I can already write decent C# applications that run in browser while using already existing C# libraries for e.g parsing text and it will run fine.
So, WebAssembly allows me to use existing code C# and move it to the browser while developing in my fancy language instead of Javascript and I think it (dropping js) is very solid pros
I just think tooling (visual studio, vs code, rider, etc...) around C#'s Blazor has to mature in order to make this kind of development worth considering, but I wouldnt call that "long way to go"
- Rochus 6y ago> I can already write decent C# applications that run in browser .. it will run fine. It is undoubtedly technically possible, but not really practicable, unless you accept an exorbitant speed-down and much higher memory consumption than e.g. when running in DotNet. Personally, I don't find that attractive in any way, nor do I find it particularly efficient.
- tester34 6y agoI've been trying it on small CRUDs, so nothing impressive was happening on the front side, so I didn't really notice those problems. I think DLLs size and lack of DOM access was the biggest problem at the moment I've been testing it
- Rochus 6y agoTry with a representative application where a whole JS based single page app is implemented in another language than JS (e.g. C++/Qt), which is one of the core benefit propositions made by WASM.