[labawi]

HTML & CSS is a viable option. HTML is actually more efficient. There are benchmarks and studies, yet they are not needed, as the difference is apparent.

Must we cede control of user agents to random third parties, loading and executing ever more obfuscated, inaccessible, bloated and hostile code? AFAICT, most of the coded loaded in a typical browser serves a user-hostile purpose.

Do you think wasm support should be mandatory for random web pages? Do you think it will not be used to shove even more bloated, hostile etc code? Will it not be used to circumvent/prevent adblockers etc? Do I need to link to a study showing most wasm is used in a hostile manner?

IMO, wasm is a net-negative on the web. Even though it does have significant good uses. It should be (or should have been) opt-in for specific pages that have a good use for it.

[Animats]

WASM is for when you need serious client side crunch power, like running a 3D game. If all you're doing is manipulating the DOM, it's overkill.

For ordinary web sites, the other extreme, DaisyUI, a CSS-only system, seems useful.

[1] https://daisyui.com