3 ms·
The only thing I've ever seen webassembly used for online, was a hobby project where someone used it to get clang to run in the browser, which is cool, but kind
by jart 4y ago
The only thing I've ever seen webassembly used for online, was a hobby project where someone used it to get clang to run in the browser, which is cool, but kind of gimmicky, since no one wants to use a web page that needs to download hundreds of megs of dependencies. With Flash you could see the value like the Newgrounds animations it made possible, which would not have been possible otherwise. What has webassembly done for us besides turn the open web into opaque binary? Why is there no opt-out? It's the lack of consent that really gets to me. How many times do we have to say no?
- frosted-flakes 4y agoYou've probably used WebAssembly many times without knowing it. Figma uses it heavily, for example. Why do you want to say no?
- jart 4y agoWhat difference does it make why people want to say no? The issue is we're not being given a choice. WebAssembly is very new, it's controversial, it reduces transparency, and it increases the risk of exposing bugs in your hardware to every news site you visit as well as their ad exchanges. There should be a config option that lets people who are concerned about these things disable it.
- slimsag 4y agoDo these browser options, which I will note are currently disabled by default, not work for you? | Browser | Option | Enabled by default | |---------|-----------------------|--------------------| | Firefox | dom.webgpu.enabled | Not yet! | | Chrome | #enable-unsafe-webgpu | Not yet! | I imagine this has something to do with why browser vendors have taken so long to ship WebGPU (another complaint I hear from WebGPU skeptics frequently), but what do I know.