| > if one needs performance it is better served with GPU code than WebAssembly What? No! Would you suggest replacing e.g. the Linux kernel (parts of which are very performance critical) with GPU code too? WebGPU is great for, well, GPU-like compute! That's not nearly all performance-critical compute. One example: Stockfish, a top chess engine, is exclusively CPU-based, and runs perfectly in WASM. > At least we got the revenge of plugins, Flash, ActiveX and Java applets, running back on the browser thanks to WebAssembly based implementations. Couldn't disagree more. Flash, ActiveX and Java were unpopular because they all came with their own weird/non-native-feeling GUI toolkits and UI paradigms (e.g. breaking right clicks and text selection, Ctrl+F etc.). Flash and ActiveX were also closed source and only available on some platforms. ActiveX was also very badly sandboxed on top of all of that. WASM is none of that. The only thing you'd notice e.g. about a site bringing its own media codec, game engine etc. in WASM instead of JavaScript is better performance. |
Indeed WASM is nothing like yet bytecode being capitalised by startups, in search of the next Java goldmine, by folks that enjoy bashing about it. /s
App servers bad, Kubernetes with WASM, "oh boy that is soooo cool!".