|
|
|
|
|
|
by masukomi
2335 days ago
|
|
|
is it "a technology on top of others"? Would you say the same about LLVM? How is it any different? I've never heard anyone say anything like "oh, well LLVM is a technology on top of ..." They're both compile targets that run within a VM right? Now, I'd agree that there aren't many jobs "in LLVM". There are just a handful of folks working on LLVM compilers and VMs. For the same reason I wouldn't expect any jobs "in WASM" any time soon, other than ones working on compilers targeting the format or enabling other language runtimes to consume it. |
|
|
And e.g. if we're talking about improving WebAssembly support in LLVM, I'd primarily consider that an LLVM job: Familarity with LLVM, compilers, ... is probably more important than knowing WebAssembly. If you work on a project targeting WebAssembly in the end, knowing the source language (and if targeting the browser, browser APIs) is probably the primary part.
I agree that "on top of others" wasn't the best wording. Another attempt at describing what I meant: You're unlikely to be a "WebAssembly developer", in the same way that you won't a be a "LLVM IR" developer, and "x86 assembly" developers are rare. Way more commonly, knowing about those lower-level things are an add-on to the primary label, e.g. useful things for a C++ developer to know. I don't think WebAssembly is big enough that a specialist role of e.g. "WebAssembly on $platform performance expert" would be a job description yet, even if there's maybe already a few people being effectively that.