I think I would appreciate it now, and the JavaScript that replaced it is really horrible. We haven't really gained any ground in about fifteen years, in real terms, there's just been a lot of swirling.
Even WebAssembly's best case scenario is... Java Applets done a smidgeon better.
WebAssembly's best case scenario is "native software compiled to run to the web." Unlike Java applets, WebAssembly isn't tied to a specific language or runtime, so that "smidge" in the case of being inclusive of so many languages is pretty big.
You could even run Flash sites in WebAssembly, the only thing stopping that from happening is copyright law. It would probably be even safer and run faster than Adobe's plugin.
I dunno, I don't get the point. If it gets rid of the dumpster fire that is JS applications, good, but it'd be better if the web could be for documents and applications could be for applications.
I'm too cynical and I've seen too much to believe that it'll be silver bullets and rainbows.
The write-once, run-everywhere idea always falls down, and pushes everything to lowest common denominator shovel-ware.
>but it'd be better if the web could be for documents and applications could be for applications.
I disagree. Being able to compile software in practically any language and have it run both natively (because native runtimes for WebAssembly do exist) and in a browser would revolutionize the way people access software.
I mean, someone wrote Pong in COBOL[0] and I can run it in a browser without having to find a COBOL runtime for Windows 10. That's pretty damn cool, and it's significantly better than what Java and Flash could provide for both developers and the end user.
Even WebAssembly's best case scenario is... Java Applets done a smidgeon better.