3 ms·
> But only in processing power Only in processing power? So you mean JavaScript is less efficient than WebAssembly, which means every time a piece of JavaScri
by peutetre 2y ago
> But only in processing power
Only in processing power?
So you mean JavaScript is less efficient than WebAssembly, which means every time a piece of JavaScript runs on the billions of systems running its suboptimal runtime there is higher power usage, which means there is a greater demand on energy supply, which means there are greater carbon emissions, which means more global warming, which means we're closer to a climate change catastrophe than ever before.
So not only is JavaScript slow it's also an ecological disaster.
You've convinced me. Brendan Eich has a lot to answer for.
- leptons 2y agoWow. I've never seen anyone make a sky-is-falling argument about Javascript to this level before. Bravo? /s? Either way it's an impressive reach.
- peutetre 2y agoIf you're a large hosting provider like a Google or a Microsoft or an Amazon or a CloudFlare, you want to be eco. You want to be eco for PR reasons, for financial reasons, and for practical engineering reasons. Slow scripting languages don't make you eco. You have to think bigger.
- leptons 2y agoYes, let's save the electrons so we can mine bitcoin with them. /s oh, oh, wait - I have an idea! Let's just write everything in 8-bit assembly language, that will let us really optimize and save all the electrons for bitcoin mining! /s You really are barking up the wrong tree. Going after Javascript as if it's the reason the planet is doomed, or even makes any difference at all in the grand scheme of things, is just looney tunes crazy. Sorry, it just is.