3 ms·

this sucks. poor web assemblyscript but i really like the rust way

• wrnr 5y ago
  Yea, my first contact with wasm was through AS but I switched to rust soon after, it just doesn't have the same momentum.
  • trusktr 5y ago
    I think you're mistaken there: AssemblyScript is much newer, it's momentum is only just getting started. AssemblyScript is one of the top three most desired languages for WebAssembly now: https://blog.scottlogic.com/2021/06/21/state-of-wasm.html https://blog.scottlogic.com/2021/06/21/state-of-wasm.html In the past year it has gained numerous libraries and bindings, including from Surma from Google. Stay tuned...
• trusktr 5y ago
  It is fair to like Rust, but there is nonetheless an influx of web developers who already know JavaScript and TypeScript moving to AssemblyScript to (finally) experience what Wasm is all about. They don't want to move to other languages. I believe their experience should be highly valued, and as optimal as possible. This influx is the reason why AssemblyScript is now in the top three WebAssembly languages next to C++ and Rust (https://blog.scottlogic.com/2021/06/21/state-of-wasm.html https://blog.scottlogic.com/2021/06/21/state-of-wasm.html) and should not be taken lightly. There is a huge opportunity here to build an optimal foundation for these incoming developers, so that they won't be let down. The influx has only just begun. Ideally though, interface types would give languages options: the ability to choose which format their boundary will use. Obviously a JS host and a language like AssemblyScript would align on WTF-16, while a Rust Wasm module running on a Rust-powered Wasm runtime like wasmtime could optimally choose UTF-8. I'm hoping things will be designed with flexibility in mind for this upcoming most-generic runtime feature.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]