3 ms·
I still long for a world where we got ASM.js and SIMD directly in JavaScript.
by davidmurdoch 2y ago
I still long for a world where we got ASM.js and SIMD directly in JavaScript.
- KeplerBoy 2y agoWhile we're at it, let's have CUDA.js and let me map CUDA objects to WebGL Texture and Vertex Buffers. So many cool visualization to be built.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoIt's got Urbit energy
- __s 2y agoyou can still use ASM.js it's just a coding convention
- davidmurdoch 2y agoNo it's not just a convention. It was also an optimization compiler.
- hankman86 2y agoSome JavaScript engines used to (or maybe still do) detect asm.js compliant code and then AOT-compiled it into machine instructions. You could theoretically write asm.js code by hand. But that would have been error prone and laborious. For all intents and purposes, one would transpile a native code base into asm.js using the likes of Emscripten. There used to be a SIMD.js proposal, which was AFAIK abandoned in favor of WebAssembly SIMD. Google’s proprietary Native Client also added limited SIMD support as its last hooray. I personally think the way to go is to improve the interoperability between JavaScript and WebAssembly instead of continuing to pursue low-level pattern like asm.js and SIMD in JavaScript. And let’s face it. For any larger code base, JavaScript is a mere deployment format, not the language you code your project in. I am still hoping for a future version of Typescript that can compile into WebAssembly.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoThey don't optimize asm anymore. But yes, you said what I didn't feel like typing out, except I think we should return to high performance JS.