5 ms·

This is a disappointing post -- they picked up a complex thing that they didn't fully understand, pushed some buttons, and then complained when it didn't work a

by evmar 3y ago

This is a disappointing post -- they picked up a complex thing that they didn't fully understand, pushed some buttons, and then complained when it didn't work as they expected. I expect more from this blogger, whose content I think of as usually good.

klysm 3y ago
Well why not write about it? I don’t see this as “bad” content
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
refulgentis 3y ago
Being perfectly frank: this really resonated with me. I fought through all this about 18 months ago and it was worth it. Tried again 3 months ago and it was impossible, gave it a solid 3-5 days before I pulled back and just did FFI on native and JS on web. WASM has an extremely high learning curve and this post did a great job representing it. Even the "oh you just need X Y and Z" post is indecipherable to me and I learned the acronyms, again, just 3 months ago. EDIT: this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37629619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37629619
- djur 3y ago
  The post carefully avoids making any more expansive claims than "I tried to use WASM in the most obvious way apparent to me and ran into a lot of difficulties". What this implies for the grandiose claims of some WASM boosters is left to the reader to determine. (And I'd describe myself as fairly pro-WASM myself.) In that sense it's a great counterbalance to the hundreds of "here's how I used WASM to accomplish some trivial or meaningless task" pieces you see out there.
Grimburger 3y ago
I had a good laugh at it, it was relatable. They are right about the DX with wasm, it's simply not there. Those error messages are all too common and there's a lot of vague things going on when you compile it down. The whole ecosystem is quite fragmented and a bit of a mess.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "The whole ecosystem is quite fragmented and a bit of a mess." Just the general web style of doing things? I was hoping wasm to be somewhat cleaner and I think it is compared to html and co, but I also ran into quite some wtf moments, with the little experiments I was doing.
  - tormeh 3y ago
    A big issue is that it doesn’t currently replace the old webtech, but instead just adds to it. You can’t use WASM in the browser without also using JS, which is unfortunate.
    - couchand 3y ago
      That's the direction they're actively working towards. Unfortunately you can't expect to design a big novel piece of web tech and every intended interface point correctly in a way that a cohort of unrelated browser vendors will implement before the very first release.
      - NohatCoder 3y ago
        If that is what they want then they should scrap WASM and start over. The design is just fundamentally wrong for a JavaScript replacement.
        couchand 3y ago
        ... based on what do you say that?
ygouzerh 3y ago
[dead]
IshKebab 3y ago
Being complex isn't an excuse for being completely unapproachable. There are multiple ways in which error messages and documentation could have been way better here.
isitmadeofglass 3y ago
[dead]

by evmar 3y ago

klysm 3y ago

Well why not write about it? I don’t see this as “bad” content

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

refulgentis 3y ago

Being perfectly frank: this really resonated with me. I fought through all this about 18 months ago and it was worth it. Tried again 3 months ago and it was impossible, gave it a solid 3-5 days before I pulled back and just did FFI on native and JS on web. WASM has an extremely high learning curve and this post did a great job representing it. Even the "oh you just need X Y and Z" post is indecipherable to me and I learned the acronyms, again, just 3 months ago. EDIT: this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37629619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37629619

djur 3y ago
The post carefully avoids making any more expansive claims than "I tried to use WASM in the most obvious way apparent to me and ran into a lot of difficulties". What this implies for the grandiose claims of some WASM boosters is left to the reader to determine. (And I'd describe myself as fairly pro-WASM myself.) In that sense it's a great counterbalance to the hundreds of "here's how I used WASM to accomplish some trivial or meaningless task" pieces you see out there.

Grimburger 3y ago

I had a good laugh at it, it was relatable. They are right about the DX with wasm, it's simply not there. Those error messages are all too common and there's a lot of vague things going on when you compile it down. The whole ecosystem is quite fragmented and a bit of a mess.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"The whole ecosystem is quite fragmented and a bit of a mess." Just the general web style of doing things? I was hoping wasm to be somewhat cleaner and I think it is compared to html and co, but I also ran into quite some wtf moments, with the little experiments I was doing.
- tormeh 3y ago
  A big issue is that it doesn’t currently replace the old webtech, but instead just adds to it. You can’t use WASM in the browser without also using JS, which is unfortunate.
  - couchand 3y ago
    That's the direction they're actively working towards. Unfortunately you can't expect to design a big novel piece of web tech and every intended interface point correctly in a way that a cohort of unrelated browser vendors will implement before the very first release.
    - NohatCoder 3y ago
      If that is what they want then they should scrap WASM and start over. The design is just fundamentally wrong for a JavaScript replacement.
      - couchand 3y ago
        ... based on what do you say that?

ygouzerh 3y ago

[dead]

IshKebab 3y ago

Being complex isn't an excuse for being completely unapproachable. There are multiple ways in which error messages and documentation could have been way better here.

isitmadeofglass 3y ago

[dead]