[CyberDildonics]

> It's faster and more flexible

I can see where you are getting confused. It is actually just faster. Again, there is nothing you can do is wasm that you can't already do it javascript.

> The deployed code is unreviewed, unaccounted, unsigned and executed automatically. I consider unsafe in the computing sense. So, I consider code execution on the web unacceptable.

All of these things apply to javascript.

> On top of that I consider JavaScript a bad language. I'm worried by how much it's pushed as a teaching language.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread. It is pretty clear that you have biases and frustrations that have nothing to do with technical merits.

[madez]

It's irrelevant if it's just faster, or has other technical merits, too. What those specifically are is irrelevant, as the political and societal consequences of advancing that way of code deployment are bad independently of that. My whole point is solely based on these consequences.

[CyberDildonics]

You keep making that assertion, but you haven't really backed it up by anything. If you are talking about obfuscation, javascript can be obfuscated just as much as webasm. Again, all IO must happen in javascript anyway and anyone can look at a text representation of webasm.