[Shadonototra]

> I think Rust has the best WASM

Nope, C/C++ has, emscripten remains undefeated

You don't just put a name and expect things to skyroket

C++/Go/C# has more chance to become the standard toolkit for WASM than rust

rust problem, is people promotes more the "rust"™ rather than their project, the crabs definitely shadows them, it's unfortunate

[the_duke]

Your comment seems to rooted in your dislike of Rust, rather than provide any technical arguments.

The Rust tooling certainly was the best, no question. As the Mozilla WASM devs have moved on the WASM tooling has stagnated, sadly, and The C++ tooling has caught up.

Languages like C# and Go are inherently worse for WASM because they require GC and have big runtimes they have to bring along.

[Ha_Mei__33]

>> Languages like C# and Go are inherently worse for WASM because they require GC and have big runtimes they have to bring along.

People are streaming GBs of content with their devices. At startup most of the social media apps or websites are downloading tens of MBs. Users don't care or notice.

I don't know the size of the C# runtime in WASM, but the Go runtime is compressed at about 0.5 MB. Downloading this at startup is unnoticeable unless you are deep in the wild. With TinyGo (https://tinygo.org/) it's less than 50 KB (don't know the exact number, I think around 30 KB). So really small.

The weight of a runtime is not a convincing argument against C# or Go.

On the other hand, GC and runtime make development of memory safe and concurrent code much easier than C/C++/Rust. Also, performance of C# and Go is so very close to C/C++/Rust, that for most use cases they are fast enough.

Bottom line: C# or Go are not *inherently* worse for WASM. You still need to develop your app. With both C# and Go you can do it with much less mental overhead compared to C/C++/Rust. You have more time and energy to focus on your problem to solve than to manually manage memory. If you really need the absolute cutting edge performance, not WASM but native would be more appropriate anyway.

[pjmlp]

Looking forward to a Rust framework than can actually compete with Blazor, nope Yew isn't it.

[gk1256]

I can dislike Rust too, but the facts are facts. Emscripten is the leader of WASM world and lot of its code is based on C++.

[pacificat0r]

Emscriptem is targeted at browsers and for that rust does have the target wasm32-unknown-emscripten

However, when targeting wasm outside browsers wasm32-wasi is usually a better option.

[jedisct1]

When targeting WASI or for standalone (no wasi, no emscripten) WebAssembly, Zig is currently the best option, IMHO.

Modules are small and fast, virtually all existing code is compatible out of the box and the standard library comes with full WASI support. And enabling runtime-specific optimizations such as SIMD is as simple as adding a compilation target flag.

While I maintain quite a few Rust crates specifically designed for WebAssembly/WASI usage, my personal experience is that Zig is often better, even from a performance perspective.

TinyGo is also amazing at producing optimized modules, and a lot of existing Go code can be compiled with it without any changes.

[pjmlp]

I already have wasm outside browsers, it is called JVM and CLR bytecode.

> More than 20 programming tools vendors offer some 26 programming languages — including C++, Perl, Python, Java, COBOL, RPG and Haskell — on .NET.

https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/22/massive-industry-and-d...

[gk1256]

"Emscripten" can target platform outside browsers. You have STANDALONE_WASM flag for that.