Re:WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
by niccaluim on Sunday November 01, 2015 @07:43PM
(#10489258)
I was very much there, and I'd sooner eat my cat than go back to that era of Java. But C++? Is that really the best we can do? Everyone's so afraid of breaking backwards compatibility but I don't see any other way out of the never-ending accretion of hacks Eich left us with.
Re:WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
by jacobolus on Sunday November 01, 2015 @08:03PM
(#10489312)
Not C++ per se, but anything that can compile to WebAssembly, which should right away include anything with an LLVM toolchain, and should down the line include any compiled language for which someone puts the work in to add WebAssembly as a compile target.
I’m also hoping it winds up being friendly enough to hand write WebAssembly for small chunks of numerical code. With asm.js, that’s currently kind of a pain.
Re:WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
by dikaiosune on Sunday November 01, 2015 @10:35PM
(#10489841)
Rust in the browser?
- isolated (outside of DOM) - non standard (not everywhere) - third party (proprietary) - alien (uncanny value of different UI style) - bloated (even compared to the web stack, Spring was an over-engineered badly designed mess of a GUI API) - insecure (full of exploits to this very day, tons of them closed just last year)
it does sound as a great improvement. Except in case you weren't there and can't remember.