[QwertyPi]

> There isn't anything actually wrong with JavaScript in 2023, either.

The semantics of the language can be quite complex and it took decades for browsers to agree on them for most use cases. WASM arose out of a failure of browsers to figure out ways to deprecate this—mostly unnecessary—complexity.

> The idea that it needs to be replaced stems from countless failed attempts to shove a bunch of crap into the client with a bunch of frameworks and without a shred of actual engineering discipline.

The same can be said about the implementation of javascript in browsers as well.

We're stuck with it regardless, but our reliance on javascript and its myriad interactions with html and css functions much the same way for large browser vendors as regulatory capture does for large corporations at the state level.

[fabrice_d]

> WASM arose out of a failure of browsers to figure out ways to deprecate this—mostly unnecessary—complexity.

No, WASM arose out of the work done by Alon Zakai on asm.js at Mozilla which was in good part motivated to show that the web didn't need Google's PNaCl.

[ravenstine]

> The semantics of the language can be quite complex and it took decades for browsers to agree on them for most use cases.

That's ancient history. JavaScript has its quirks, but it's not a difficult language to learn or use. Frankly, I don't know where you get this idea that the semantics of the language are hard. In contrast to what? Maybe if you shared some examples I could understand what you're talking about. JavaScript was challenging in decades past not because it was complex but because it was way too simple. Using it on a webpage to do more than very rudimentary things with the browser API meant doing a lot of whacky stuff and using libraries for operations we take for granted today.

> WASM arose out of a failure of browsers to figure out ways to deprecate this—mostly unnecessary—complexity.

As someone else mentioned, no it didn't. WASM came from the same desire as Java applets and browser plugins for Shockwave and Flash, which was to develop applications that run in the browser using entirely different languages and authoring tools.

> The same can be said about the implementation of javascript in browsers as well.

No idea what you are basing this on. Nobody (as in the vast majority) thinks that modern web development is a failure because JavaScript the language is too complex. Everyone is complaining about web development because of all the tools that have been added between the keyboard and the code running in the client, and said tools failing to live up to their promise while encouraging patterns that commonly backfire.

> our reliance on javascript and its myriad interactions with html and css functions

What does that even mean? JavaScript only has as much interaction with the DOM as is demanded of it. If there's a myriad of ways that JavaScript can interact with the DOM, well, that's by design... how else would you have it? CSS functions have nothing to do with JavaScript, if that's what you're actually referring to. At most, JavaScript can listen for some events that are emitted by things like CSS animations.