4 ms·
I usually feel more concern whenever more features get stuffed into the browser. It is an accumulation of complexity that, for backwards compatibility, we get
by vendiddy 1y ago
I usually feel more concern whenever more features get stuffed into the browser.
It is an accumulation of complexity that, for backwards compatibility, we get stuck with.
The browser should be simple.
If the focus just stayed on making wasm better for web development, folks can use any language they want and the API surface area can stay small.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y agoNow, I am all for it except the fact that I've heard that some people have actually recommended the wayland protocol + wasm to be a better alternative really. And I personally feel like (I may be wrong) that at the end your proposal and the wayland proposal might be the same.. The problem with wayland protocol/your proposal is the fact that such things have already been tried (java applets) and they were insecure, and accessibility was a mess, so reverting back to it does feel like a massive chaos since javascript was created to solve that problem.. I am not a js advocate, honestly I wish that ephemeral running of apps cross platform becomes genuinely easy (in my mind nix-shell comes) There is htmx which is nice too I guess but I think I still need some js to sprinkle in some more interactivity/animations. Astro with htmx / islands architecture kinda feels the best, imagine using svelte/vue/react and htmx+golang in the same project..
- pjc50 1y agoI think what people want is the ability to write in another language while retaining first class access to the DOM without too much performance penalty, and not a boxed-in arrangement like applets.
- vendiddy 1y agoThis is exactly what I want! This will also allow the wider community to innovate rather than waiting on standards bodies to decide what the think is best.