JavaScript code is much more expensive, byte for byte, than an image, because of the time spent parsing and compiling it. It's possible to parse and compile wasm as fast as it comes over the network, which makes it much more like an image than JavaScript code. Game changer!
-
-
I just believe that generalizing the idea that wasm is better than JS without talking about concrete use cases is oversimplifying the problem.
-
I definitely did not say that wasm is "better" than JS. I said that in one particular way, it has properties that are much better than JS. It isn't usually usable (the DOM APIs are in JS) so those advantages usually don't help. But the advantages are serious.
-
Sure! I love the idea of WASM (a safe and better ActiveX), but I really miss serious (public, accessible) benchmarking of time/memory consumption in the compiler/JIT ecosystem. It is a pity there are few projects like http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.