News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on W3C recommends WebAssembly. Parent comment

Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by strictnein on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:19PM (#21723871)
Unless I'm completely missing something the "text version" you're talking about is just WASM and there's quite a difference between that and minified JS.

ex:

   end $label121
   get_local $var7
   get_local $var9
   call $func3444
   get_local $var7
   call $func1500
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by coolreader18 on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:30PM (#21723994)
How is that any more readable than deobfuscated js?

    func1500(func3444(var7, var9), var7)
or more likely:

    gw(kl(s,i),s)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by maeln on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:23PM (#21723922)
Yes this is what I am talking about. Once you know the instruction, I fail to see how it is more difficult to understand than javascript.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by CivBase on Friday December 06, 2019 @05:01PM (#21726429)
That's like saying x86_64 assembly is as easy to understand as C. High level languages exist to make code easier to understand.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by int_19h on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:37PM (#21727198)
wasm is higher-level than x86 (or any other native) assembly.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by strictnein on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:29PM (#21723987)
That certainly is a take.
[ Parent | on HN ]