4 ms·
"The team notes that the idea here is not to replace JavaScript, by the way, but to allow many more languages to be compiled for the Web." Yeah, good luck with
by estefan 11y ago
"The team notes that the idea here is not to replace JavaScript, by the way, but to allow many more languages to be compiled for the Web."
Yeah, good luck with that. Ta ta Javascript :-)
- EugeneOZ 11y agoI hope Dart lang team will jump into this wagon as one of first users.
- sanxiyn 11y agoJIT (generating code in memory as data and jumping to it) is one of a few things not very well supported in asm.js and presumably the initial version of WebAssembly, so Dart probably can't use the initial version and should wait.
- M8 11y agoDart and TypeScript will be as irrelevant as JS. Why Dart if you can have Go/Scala/F#/Haskell/Ruby/etc. compiled to WebAssembly?
- sanxiyn 11y agoIf. All languages you listed need GC, which won't be in the initial version of WebAssembly. In other words, you won't be able to compile Ruby to WebAssembly any time soon. You will be able to compile Ruby implementation to WebAssembly, but you can already compile that to asm.js. That is different from compiling Ruby to WebAssembly.
- rplnt 11y agoYes and no. You can have native VM for running WebAssembly's Ruby VM... Oh my god, that sounds horrible as I wrote it.. but it can certainly be better than asm.js.
- EugeneOZ 11y agoIn comparison with TypeScript, Dart has different semantic and less legacy debts than JS. And I think the whole point of WebAssembly is to have a choice, not "perfect language".