Making WebAssembly a first-class language on the Web(hacks.mozilla.org)

24 pointsby mikece8 hours ago3 comments

thesmart3 hours ago
WebAssembly is amazing, but I don't think making it a DOM controller is where the action is. What specific scenarios do you aspire to unlock and why would those scenarios lead to broader adoption?
- bvisness34 minutes ago
  > I don't think making it a DOM controller is where the action is
  Why not? I feel like people have gotten so used to the limitations of WebAssembly today that they've internalized JS as the only answer. But I don't really like JS, and would love to build web apps in other languages, and I totally would if it wasn't a huge pain (and slower too!)
- yoshuaw2 hours ago
  I think it's less about unlocking new scenarios per se, and more about making existing scenarios better. If given the choice I'll generally prefer to write my code in Rust. But with native Wasm Component-based DOM bindings that same code will now run twice as fast.
  - yoshuaw2 hours ago
    The other side of the story here is also worth considering: native support in browsers provides a stable compile target for language toolchains. It'd be really nice if targeting the web from e.g. Kotlin, Swift, or Rust becomes just a matter of passing the right flag to the compiler.
mendyberger4 hours ago
Is `component {}` valid wit syntax? I've never seen that before
- bvisness4 hours ago
  It's proposed here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/issues/598
  Basically, it's sugar for `package` and `world` in the case where you aren't actually defining a world for others to use, and just for your own use. In such a case, the package and world names are irrelevant anyway.
nilslice2 hours ago
providing <script type="module" src="component.wasm"></script>
and the import loader to just put .wasm in an import and get to call functions are the actual useful things in this post
component model is trash