4 ms·
In her wasm summit presentation [1], Ashley Williams had a slide that showed a different picture. AssemblyScript came out with the smallest footprint, while Rus
by TachyonicBytes 4y ago
In her wasm summit presentation [1], Ashley Williams had a slide that showed a different picture. AssemblyScript came out with the smallest footprint, while Rust and C (through Emscripten) had bigger footprints--the slide is qualitative.
An article posted last week on HN [2] also seems to support this hypothesis, this time with some numbers. The AssemblyScript program had 6% the filesize of the Rust program.
So it seems like, if you want small wasm libraries, AssemblyScript may be your best shot.
[1] https://youtu.be/J5Rs9oG3FdI?t=2133
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33761756
- the_duke 4y agoRust isn't exactly known for it's small code size, due to bounds checks, heavy encouragement of using generics, ... Although it has to be said that you can get Rust code to be really small if you know what you are doing and work towards it. But I recommended Rust or C because there are reasonably mature decimal implementations. No idea if there is one for Assemblyscript.