A lot of use cases are applications that don't technically require a DOM but maybe just the ability to copy and paste text. The biggest thing is some kind of g

A lot of use cases are applications that don't technically require a DOM but maybe just the ability to copy and paste text. The biggest thing is some kind of graphics capability. What I think happened, if you look at the web assembly design discussions, is that they made the initially correct decision to limit the scope to be more manageable, but then over the years that decision became something of a religion and even a strange badge of honor. "Web assembly is not meant to replace JavaScript". It certainly is challenging to try to standardized on anything like device input or graphics APIs, but after say three years, competent and sane designers obviously should have been working on that. Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist (I am) but I sometimes suspect that Google has deliberately limited the scope of web assembly in order to maintain the control that the dominance of Chrome provides them. Because if things like keyboard/mouse and graphics had some type of web assembly standard, then it would be easy for different runtimes to support them. Then before you know it, you don't need the browser for most things, you can just use your favorite web assembly runtime. I will go so far as to suggest that this is an antitrust issue and that a technically competent government (of which maybe non exist so far) would have somehow forced the development of an evolvable shared standard like web assembly that is not missing important pieces like graphics. I see web assembly as the obvious successor to Java. It's been held back by some strange psychology and maybe even intentional sabotage.