Identi.ca
Mike Linksvayer

Mike Linksvayer at

WebAssembly should (multiple meanings) be huge, no?

Christopher Allan Webber likes this.

I think you're right, in multiple meanings. :) To unpack your potential #vaguejoke (a useful heresy if there ever was one):

  1. It could be huge, because it means less of a dependency on Javascript. Javascript has become the de-facto language on the web for... well, everyone knows why. But I don't think it's great that it's the only real option.
  2. It could mean that servers and clients could share code, without being Javascript itself necessarily. That vision is partly what lead me to explore Guile, amongst several other things. That could be huge for client-server frameworks in any non-JS language which can manage a nice export to WASM.
  3. It could be huge in terms of the size of executables! :) Many web pages now take 25 or more megabytes just to load these days, which is kinda obscene. That's probably going to get a lot harsher.
  4. It could be huge, as in terms of pushing for more of an "executable web" over the "document web". Sadly I think this may be more huge for proprietary software than free software, for reasons that are long to get into (but it doesn't, in theory, have to be.)

3 sucks, 4 might suck, but I think 1 & 2 are enough of a win that I'm pretty happy about it.

Christopher Allan Webber at 2017-03-01T03:10:10Z

clacke@libranet.de ❌, Mike Linksvayer likes this.

I think 3&4 are happening anyway, so 1&2 make WASM a win. Further, 1&2 apply not just to the web, but other classes of applications that Javascript is otherwise sadly making inroads in. Hadn't thought of it as a #vaguejoke, but you got the implications I had in mind.

I tend to agree with these two comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13759903

This is our one chance to kill javascript; if we don't do it now, it'll be entrenched forever, and best we'll ever get is 'compiles-to-js' languages like clojurescript and typescript.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13759928

I think the cause of computing freedom is likely better served by building high-quality wasm disassemblers (radare has an open ticket, for instance) and by making sure that wasm code is so tightly sandboxed that DRM can't work, i.e., that you have the equivalent of an "analog hole" because you can write a browser extension / patch that taps all the data and the inside code can't tell. Hoping that technologies won't get developed has historically not been a productive approach for software freedom; the folks who want to take our freedom have enough resources that they'll do it whether or not there's a standards process involved.


Mike Linksvayer at 2017-03-01T03:51:43Z

clacke@libranet.de ❌, Christopher Allan Webber likes this.

I agree with those comments!

Christopher Allan Webber at 2017-03-01T03:52:24Z