6 ms·

Nothing. People have been able to compile other languages into java bytecode for decades already. That didn't turn java into the one true runtime to rule them a

Nothing. People have been able to compile other languages into java bytecode for decades already. That didn't turn java into the one true runtime to rule them all, and webassembly will not be any different. I wish browser makers would focus into making the browser user and development experience actually work instead of going after the latest shiny feature.

PUSH_AX 4y ago
> Nothing. How about not relying on the JRE? Mobile support? Partitioning between applet world and JS world?
- kaba0 4y ago
  How are any of this relevant if we talk about a hypothetical future if Java was continued to be used in browsers? Browsers would include a JRE (which they actually did at a time as well, but that’s just a tiny technicality either way), there wasn’t even mobiles capable of browsing the net at the time, but there is nothing inherently unsolvable, it’s not like there is no partitioning between wasm and js world, but in this alternative reality there wouldn’t be js. Java could have access to the DOM.
simonw 4y ago
Being able to compile languages to Java bytecode doesn't help if you still have to convince users to install a Java runtime environment. WebAssembly doesn't have this problem: almost every user is already running a browser that supports it.
- hashmash 4y ago
  In the early days of Java, it was bundled with the browser. But because Sun didn't make their own (popular) browser, they couldn't dictate the terms for what features a browser was expected to include.