Re:Can You Afford It? Real-World Web Performance Budgets
by krapp on Saturday October 28, 2017 @10:51AM
(#15575300)
>Why the hell cant we build web UIs like we do desktop apps, wire it with whatever lanaguage our company uses, and compile it down to WebAssembly and ship it to clients browsers? Instead we have to write these monstrosities in shitty JavaScript with virtual doms, and hacks everywhere. Madness!
We can, but probably not now, because WebAssembly isn't quite ready yet. It still lacks garbage collection and efficient DOM access, and the specs aren't even finalized. There are already experimental targets for a few languages like Rust[0] and Lua[1], and WASM targets C/C++ out of the box.
Eventually, you'll probably be able to import arbitrary languages and environments with a few HTML tags, similar to Javascript today, or whatever the Webassembly version of a package/dependency/VM manager turns out to be, then compile and run any application ever made in the browser.
Re:Can You Afford It? Real-World Web Performance Budgets
by amelius on Saturday October 28, 2017 @11:10AM
(#15575366)
And then there are media companies that try to shoe-horn 1) into 2) because it gives them more control over the user and allows them to track the user and serve them ads.
If only there was a way to collectively punish this type of behavior.
Over time 2) has been increasigly shoe-horned into limitations of 1) and its all a giant cluster fuck now. Leave HTML to linked documents and give us an efficient runtime that we can plug into to deliver desktop class apps written in whatever language we want that works with a standardized runtime and UI language shipped built-in with every browser.
Why the hell cant we build web UIs With a standardized UI markup (not HTML), wire it with whatever lanaguage our company uses, and compile it down to WebAssembly and ship it to clients browsers? Instead we have to write these monstrosities in shitty JavaScript with virtual doms, and hacks everywhere. Madness!