3 ms·

There goes my plan to use js code generation at runtime to make my algorithms faster. Doing this with wasm will be much harder.

• giancarlostoro 5mo ago
  There's still AssemblyScript? It might meet your requirements, unless I'm misunderstanding you or the features of it. https://www.assemblyscript.org/ https://www.assemblyscript.org/
• koolala 5mo ago
  There are some WAT compilers that are small and fast for running in the browser.
• titzer 5mo ago
  It will still work. asm.js is just regular JavaScript code, after all. It just won't parse/run as fast as custom pipeline for asm.js. My guess is that you will not notice much difference unless you have a really huge application.
• flohofwoe 5mo ago
  Just try the asm.js subset and see how it performs for you, I remember that even without the special asm.js support in browsers Emscripten output performance was surprisingly good
  • cogman10 5mo ago
    In fact, I think it was only firefox that made a special JIT route. Chrome moved optimizations into the regular JIT.
• eqrion 5mo ago
  Generating wasm code at runtime is pretty easy (I'd imagine easier than generating valid asm.js code). We have a little library for our tests that handles a lot of it: https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/source/js/src/jit-test/lib/wasm-binary.js#1 https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/source/js/src/jit-test/li...
• nextaccountic 5mo ago
  If you use a library it's not harder. In Rust you would use something like this, https://crates.io/crates/wasm-encoder https://crates.io/crates/wasm-encoder While in JS you would probably use https://www.npmjs.com/package/binaryen https://www.npmjs.com/package/binaryen