|
|
|
|
|
by sqeaky
3220 days ago
|
|
I think there are only historical reason to only having bad languages in browsers. Having good languages in WASM proves it. EDIT - Good from a performance perspective, things like static typing and symbolically executable and pre-compiled. |
|
All those other dynamic scripting languages? They're DOA because nobody's going to download the entire VM every time.
What about all those nice functional languages? Very problematic because the toolchain relies on LLVM-like semantics which don't like good garbage collectors or functional programming in general.
We then get down to C-like languages, Rust, and more esoteric languages (and promptly discard the esoteric ones for lack of a decent ecosystem).
Who in their right mind wants to write a front-end in C++ or Rust? By the time you get anything done, the web has changed and you're stuck with a pile of dated code that takes too much time and costs too much money to update.
The web had a shot at a decent language with Dart (it was/is even an ECMA standard). It didn't die because of other browsers. It died because of poor web dev adoption rates.
If only Eich had been allowed to implement scheme then none of this would have been an issue.