| > I do wonder whether some respondents are incorrectly identifying AssemblyScript as JavaScript? Perhaps we should include HTML and CSS in the list of languages to choose from next year! :P I picked JavaScript thinking of AssemblyScript as a tool (not a language) to use JavaScript (with types) as a language compiled to WebAssembly. Maybe the results are not accurate. I also use Wasm for web (the largest category of use so far) and would not use a JavaScript engine inside Wasm to talk to plain JavaScript in a browser (I don't think any web developer would hehe). Perhaps the survey should have an option to choose "JavaScript running in a JavaScript engine inside WebAssembly", and "JavaScript compiled to WebAssembly", to make the results clear as to which "JavaScript" people are using. Does a JavaScript engine inside WebAssembly even count as a "WebAssembly language"? Or is that C++ and Rust actually? Does running a browser in WebAssembly make HTML and CSS WebAssembly languages too? I think that NEAR users just use the SDK, I don't think the users chose JS specifically for it to be in Wasm. |
That's actually what I was thinking about when picking this option! Think of the following situation:
- You're a JS developer, and want to write a client / library mainly with JS
- You want to use Wasm only for some narrow, performance-critical parts
In this case, you may not want to use something like Rust, because that adds tooling overhead, makes the Wasm bytecode bigger & makes it harder to hand-optimize the Wasm. On the other hand, you might not want to directly write the Wasm in raw WAT, because that has crappy DX.
In this situation, having a JS library is a viable way to make the writing of raw Wasm somewhat more efficient. Example of this pattern being used in the wild: https://github.com/iden3/wasmcurves/blob/master/src/bls12381...