2 ms·
> At no point there was a conversation about "replacing js" There absolutely was. This famous talk was made even when it was still Asm.js: https://www.destroy
by IshKebab 10mo ago
> At no point there was a conversation about "replacing js"
There absolutely was. This famous talk was made even when it was still Asm.js:
https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
- Dylan16807 10mo agoThat talk is intentionally silly and at the end is talking about replacing all binaries, not javascript in particular, and yes that does strongly change the meaning.
- miki_oomiri 10mo agoNot gonna argue with "who said what". All I can tell you with certainty is that the people who designed and funded webgl/asmjs/llvm efforts at Mozilla (Alon, Vlad, Brendan, …) clearly understood that wasm was a needed companion alongside JS (and its DOM&co bindings). Not a replacement. I was part of these conversations. I understand why people would think it was a JS killer, but that's a naive way of looking at it.