4 ms·
Working with WASM isn’t really that good for interactive pages with dynamic DOM. If you don’t mind I guess you could just render to a canvas but then you lose
by akdev1l 2y ago
Working with WASM isn’t really that good for interactive pages with dynamic DOM.
If you don’t mind I guess you could just render to a canvas but then you lose a ton of functionality provided by the browser. (Eg: making a responsive page in WASM seems hard)
It seems to me for most web applications JS is the only real alternative as of now
- chrismorgan 2y ago> Working with WASM isn’t really that good for interactive pages with dynamic DOM. It’s completely fine. At present you’ll need to trampoline via JS to make the actual DOM calls, but that’s not typically a performance bottleneck; and such bindings can give you exactly the same API, if you choose. Yes, work is just about done in browsers for giving you direct access to these things without the JS trampolining, and lots of people are hanging out for that to be dependable, but in practical terms it changes nothing. Nothing. No change in expressiveness; it only gets you probably slightly better performance, and a simpler technique for binding (which is typically immaterial for end users, as libraries were handling that for them).