> "Part of an effort to make a Jupytr notebook-like environment without relying on server side code."

So there won't be any server side code, you'd just be downloading the entire Python stack and dependencies every time you want to use this through your browser. This time it will be WASM though, instead of x86/x64/pyc.

That we can, doesn't mean that we should.

Well, you'd download the entire stack indeed - but not every time. Your browser does caching too.

Plus, if it’s packaged as a PWA, it can run offline and seamlessly update the runtime in the background using a Web Worker.

It doesn't share the cache between the sites though. A local installation has only one runtime.

Absolutely; it's pretty much like installing an application that includes all its dependencies. Which, interestingly, is also the direction installed apps are moving towards somewhat, at least on Linux.

There's an advantage even if you're running it locally. Now you can just load up some static HTML + JS files in your browser instead of spinning up a server and then pointing your browser at localhost.

It would work on a Chromebook and a iPad also.

And yes I could pay for a Jupiter notebook hosted on some instance but I dont want to.

Maybe, but it might require more RAM and CPU horsepower than they provide in order to be usable.

That would be dumb, so why assume that would happen? You don’t download every picture on every refresh.

As long as it's framed properly it can be acceptable. Ie. You get to a page with details and a "load environment" button with progress bars and all.

Of course when it's like 50-100MB you wouldn't use it in some cases. But once cached you're golden for your repeat visitor audience.

I guess we need an in-browser package management like npm?

Just compile Debian to WASM and use apt.

Just run a browser in your WASM Debian to hit the same page.

The plan is to build something based on conda.

In-browser package management, combined with caching of common dependencies, yes.

Like npm? No.

Well I'm not really into JS web development, but NPM and a bunch of Node-like extensions would give you compatibility with lots of existing libraries.

> I guess we need an in-browser package management like npm?

It exists and it's called bower.

I can think of several scenarios where this could be useful.