3 ms·

The WebAssembly team decided to go with a binary format because that code can be compressed even more than the standard JavaScript text files and be

The WebAssembly team decided to go with a binary format because that code can be compressed even more than the standard JavaScript text files and because it’s much faster for the engine to decode the binary format Are there real world examples of websites where the size of the JavaScript and the time it needs to decode it make up a significant portion of the load time?

yenda 11y ago
Gmail ? Google Docs ? And it might also be the final blow on Flash.
- jonlucc 11y ago
  Did flash need a final blow? I assumed it is still around in small pockets because of projects that are abandoned and casual developers who don't intend to learn a new set of tools.
  - bovermyer 11y ago
    It's more pervasive and hard-to-kill than you think. At least these days we don't have project managers asking "can we add Flash?"
monk_e_boy 11y ago
Games.
vidarh 11y ago
I have a project where downloading the JS takes about 30s on my 40Mbps home connection.... Maybe not so many "websites", but there a lot of javascript applications will benefit greatly cutting down on the size and parsing time.
- NKCSS 11y ago
  Why are you serving 150MB of JavaScript??
sorenbs 11y ago
It's become "a normal thing" to take GB-size games and compile them to asm.js. WebAssembly will absolutely make a difference.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Make this thing mainstream and, yes, there will be plenty. Why would you compile your application into x86 code if you can compile into WebAssembly, distribute inline on your web page, and just cache it at the client's machine? (Yes, there'll be plenty of whys. There'll also be plenty of applications for what none of the whys apply.)
corysama 11y ago
In Unity's tests, they were able to reduce the code size of their WebGL demo from 19.0 MB of asm.js to 6.3 MB of WebAssembly code (uncompressed). http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/06/18/webgl-webassembly-and-feature-roadmap/ http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/06/18/webgl-webassembly-and-fe...

yenda 11y ago

Gmail ? Google Docs ? And it might also be the final blow on Flash.

jonlucc 11y ago
Did flash need a final blow? I assumed it is still around in small pockets because of projects that are abandoned and casual developers who don't intend to learn a new set of tools.
- bovermyer 11y ago
  It's more pervasive and hard-to-kill than you think. At least these days we don't have project managers asking "can we add Flash?"

monk_e_boy 11y ago

Games.

vidarh 11y ago

I have a project where downloading the JS takes about 30s on my 40Mbps home connection.... Maybe not so many "websites", but there a lot of javascript applications will benefit greatly cutting down on the size and parsing time.

NKCSS 11y ago
Why are you serving 150MB of JavaScript??

sorenbs 11y ago

It's become "a normal thing" to take GB-size games and compile them to asm.js. WebAssembly will absolutely make a difference.

marcosdumay 11y ago

Make this thing mainstream and, yes, there will be plenty. Why would you compile your application into x86 code if you can compile into WebAssembly, distribute inline on your web page, and just cache it at the client's machine? (Yes, there'll be plenty of whys. There'll also be plenty of applications for what none of the whys apply.)

corysama 11y ago

In Unity's tests, they were able to reduce the code size of their WebGL demo from 19.0 MB of asm.js to 6.3 MB of WebAssembly code (uncompressed). http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/06/18/webgl-webassembly-and-feature-roadmap/ http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/06/18/webgl-webassembly-and-fe...