3 ms·

Why don’t we push for first class wasm precaching in browsers? Right now wasm libs are limited in interop with JS and DOM. Could we have a .net/JVM like languag

by lukevp 6y ago

Why don’t we push for first class wasm precaching in browsers? Right now wasm libs are limited in interop with JS and DOM. Could we have a .net/JVM like language-agnostic wasm standard lib bundled with all browsers, and target it like we do with .net standard? Then app makers could target a .wasm standard release and if the browser didn’t support it, polyfill in at app start the missing features?

Spivak 6y ago
“Please Update .NET to the latest version to access this website.”
- emteycz 6y ago
  Surely you know that sites are chasing milliseconds as it has enormous influence on conversion rates?
JoshTriplett 6y ago
> Right now wasm libs are limited in interop with JS and DOM. Could we have a .net/JVM like language-agnostic wasm standard lib bundled with all browsers, and target it like we do with .net standard? There's already a plan to give WebAssembly direct access to DOM, and to any other API JavaScript would have access to, without needing a JavaScript shim. (This requires integration between WebAssembly and the JavaScript garbage collector, which is part of why it's taking time to develop.)
ComodoHacker 6y ago
>language-agnostic wasm standard lib Can such a thing even exist? I think we'd better install wasm libraries (both language-specific and language-agnostic) like we install browser extensions.
- rictic 6y ago
  > Can such a thing even exist? Yes, cross-language code sharing is being worked on. > I think we'd better install wasm libraries (both language-specific and language-agnostic) like we install browser extensions. How would a site know what libraries are available? How would versioning work? This is a caching problem, best solved at the normal browser resource cache level IMO.