3 ms·

> A lot of developers would rather make websites in their language of choice than learn JavaScript. (And who can blame them?). Personally I’m quite happy to bl

> A lot of developers would rather make websites in their language of choice than learn JavaScript. (And who can blame them?). Personally I’m quite happy to blame them. If I want to do ML I use Python, if I do statistics I use R, for messing with Windows I use C#, for using databases I use SQL and for the web I use JavaScript. I think that refusing to learn other languages is a foolish consistency.

satvikpendem 3y ago
If those all compiled to WASM, then you can mix and match freely.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Already possible in .NET for years, it is called Common Language Runtime for a reason. Also TIMI on IBM i, language environments on z/OS, among other examples.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    True, but imagine being able to interop with all the languages ;)
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      I don't need to imagine, > More than 20 programming tools vendors offer some 26 programming languages — including C++, Perl, Python, Java, COBOL, RPG and Haskell — on .NET. Taken from https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/22/massive-industry-and-developer-support-for-microsoft-net-on-display-at-professional-developers-conference-2001/ https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/22/massive-industry-and-d... In 2001.
      - tredre3 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CLI_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CLI_languages At first it seems like an impressive list of languages! But upon closer inspection, over half of them are either abandoned or are commercial products that have been coasting mostly unmaintained for a decade... By now even the JVM ecosystem is a lot healthier. With WebAssembly, all languages[1] supported by LLVM can be compiled with no custom compiler nonsense. AND we get all the languages[2] that depend on those languages for free as well! The entire burden is on LLVM (and soon GCC) with everything benefiting downstream, surely you can see how it's different from CLI/JVM? This time the compile-once-run-everywhere promise might actually be true. 1. C, C++, Zig, Rust, etc 2. Python, Perl, PHP, Lua, we can even do some inception with webassembly runtimes.
        mr_toad 3y ago
        > With WebAssembly, all languages[1] supported by LLVM can be compiled with no custom compiler nonsense. You can do that without WASM. This really reinforces the authors point.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        Just like it happened during the last 25 years, the amount of languages where people will be willing to keep the effort, daily, will fade way. Or the money from all those VC firms betting the farm on Webassembly startups will dry out. Until someone comes up with yet another bytecode format, claiming yet again to be UNCOL from 1958. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCOL
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        LLVM is now the modern version of UNCOL, it seems.

satvikpendem 3y ago

If those all compiled to WASM, then you can mix and match freely.

pjmlp 3y ago
Already possible in .NET for years, it is called Common Language Runtime for a reason. Also TIMI on IBM i, language environments on z/OS, among other examples.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  True, but imagine being able to interop with all the languages ;)
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    I don't need to imagine, > More than 20 programming tools vendors offer some 26 programming languages — including C++, Perl, Python, Java, COBOL, RPG and Haskell — on .NET. Taken from https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/22/massive-industry-and-developer-support-for-microsoft-net-on-display-at-professional-developers-conference-2001/ https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/22/massive-industry-and-d... In 2001.
    - tredre3 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CLI_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CLI_languages At first it seems like an impressive list of languages! But upon closer inspection, over half of them are either abandoned or are commercial products that have been coasting mostly unmaintained for a decade... By now even the JVM ecosystem is a lot healthier. With WebAssembly, all languages[1] supported by LLVM can be compiled with no custom compiler nonsense. AND we get all the languages[2] that depend on those languages for free as well! The entire burden is on LLVM (and soon GCC) with everything benefiting downstream, surely you can see how it's different from CLI/JVM? This time the compile-once-run-everywhere promise might actually be true. 1. C, C++, Zig, Rust, etc 2. Python, Perl, PHP, Lua, we can even do some inception with webassembly runtimes.
      - mr_toad 3y ago
        > With WebAssembly, all languages[1] supported by LLVM can be compiled with no custom compiler nonsense. You can do that without WASM. This really reinforces the authors point.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Just like it happened during the last 25 years, the amount of languages where people will be willing to keep the effort, daily, will fade way. Or the money from all those VC firms betting the farm on Webassembly startups will dry out. Until someone comes up with yet another bytecode format, claiming yet again to be UNCOL from 1958. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCOL
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        LLVM is now the modern version of UNCOL, it seems.