[roblabla]

What part of flash was bad?

- the (bad) sandboxing? WASM uses the same sandboxing model as JS, and thus provides the same security guarantees?

- the requirement of an external plugin? WASM comes preinstalled in all browsers.

- the proprietary aspect? Wasm is an open standard.

- the obfuscated nature? WASM can be decompiled very easily. Besides, js served by modern websotes are already minimized and obfuscated beyond recognition.

What am I missing here? I consider Flash to be a truly great piece of technology. It allowed easy creation of multimedia contents Its flaws were in its implementation, not in what it allowed. I want wasm to succeed as a reincarnated, better flash.

[nchie]

Having to reimplement things such as text selection, clipboard, and making it more or less impossible to write plugins which affect the pages being shown (adblock, reddit enhancement suit, etc) are a few huge reasons. I'd prefer to keep the web consistent for sites which don't actually need to be rendered on a canvas.

[roblabla]

Adblock works on the network layer, for the most part, so this would continue to work. Furthermore, most content isn't going to migrate to canvas-based rendering, as that's much more complicated to setup.

The GP I was answering too was talking about figma, a sort of content creation app in the browser. Being able to write those tools and deploy them via the web is a net positive for the web. Just like all the good ol' flash based games were an awesome thing for the web.

When flash was a thing, most web content didn't move to flash. Not only did Flash behave in a foreign way, breaking the user's habit, it was significantly harder to create flash content than web content. Similarly, it's delusional to think most web content will move to wasm. The barrier of entry is enough to prevent that.

[mkl]

Accessibility is a big problem.