3 ms·

WA will likely never publish anything backwards-incompatible, this is the web after all. If WA's worst versioning sin is 'abusing' the major version to collect

WA will likely never publish anything backwards-incompatible, this is the web after all. If WA's worst versioning sin is 'abusing' the major version to collect a number of currently implemented proposals under a canonical name, I'll live. And pray that nobody from the USB or HDMI standards committees get anywhere near.

nagisa 5y ago
Well, backwards compatibility is really a spectrum and the interpretation of the concept can fall at either end of the spectrum depending on what a person is working on. As far as wasm is concerned, there are at least two known discrepancies that made into this draft as documented here https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/1439 https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/1439. Especially the last comment by Alex here seems interesting to me – on one hand the observable result of the execution changes for the same program. On another, who is going to bother writing such programs? Should WebAssembly specification be allowed to assume nobody does and make changes such as these?
Lorin 5y ago
It's such novel tech, why bother with backwards compat between major versions until more developers use it?
- cush 5y ago
  Yeah maybe 6 years ago
- Vinnl 5y ago
  That might be what prevents more developers from using it.
saurik 5y ago
Well like, I'd think there would want to be some consistency in the meaning between WebAssembly 1.0/2.0 and WebGL 1/2?
pjmlp 5y ago
WebGL vs WebGPU shading languages.