[a3_nm]

> If there is functionality that they want which is not standardized, they go ahead and implement it.

... in a non-standardizable way.

Why not try to help create a standard instead? What's the benefit of starting with a dirty approach and deprecating it later?

[indy]

It's best to have couple of working/competing implementations first before defining a standard.

[sangnoir]

> Why not try to help create a standard instead?

They do that as well, it's not one or the other. Google had employees working on WebAssembly (along with Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft). Standards take time to be developed and finalized.

[roca]

Google had a lot of people working on NaCl and PNaCl for a long time before they started working on WebAssembly.

[sangnoir]

> Google had a lot of people working on NaCl and PNaCl for a long time before they started working on WebAssembly

That's probably because NaCl(2011) and PNaCl predate WebAssembly (announced 2015). Google was optimizing Chrome for asm.js as far back as Chrome 28 (July 2013) - less than 5 months after asm.js was announced.

[hawski]

Because people prefer something broken now then something good later.