[StavrosK]

I find it very strange that you see minified, basically completely unreadable JS as better than C (straw man, it's actually "any programming language") and assembly.

If we aren't being disingenuous, it's "any language you want versus JS" and "minified, obfuscated JS versus assembly".

[geofft]

The web has a free software problem (either that, or native code has a free software anti-problem because distributing portable precompiled code is so hard), but I find minified JS no more or less acceptable, as a language to read, than assembly generated from an optimizing compiler.

That said, minified JS on the web runs in a sandbox with a sane security model (yes, browsers don't implement it 100% right, but at least there's a model there). Optimized native code without source does whatever it likes to any file on my single-user machine, and we're expected to be okay with that (cf. https://xkcd.com/1200/). If I'm asked to choose between running one of the two, my vote is with the web app, no question.

[dispose13432]

The point of WebAssembly is to use the sandbox as a means of shipping compiled binaries in a secure manner.

[mtgx]

I wonder could all WebAssembly code be shipped in secure containers and make it run similarly to how Google sandboxed the whole Android framework inside of Chrome OS?

Is the security of WebAssembly worse than that currently? Or is it somewhat similar?

[bobajeff]

I was under the impression the point of WebAssembly is to do asm.js better.

[madeofpalk]

I think these are both, more or less, the same thing. Better asm.js is a binary.

[StavrosK]

It is both.