[samiv]

You can call JS in which you can manipulate the DOM.

Of course architecturally (also regarding your file access) it's better to use the wasm for logic as much as possible where the web (HTML/JS) provides the UI and IO, data flows into wasm for work and results flow back to the web.

This also has the benefit that you can keep your original C/C++ source code much more platform agnostic which helps reusability and testing.

[frollogaston]

Trying wasm is still on my todo list, but this sounds like how I'd expect it to work

[gspr]

> You can call JS in which you can manipulate the DOM.

Well sure. But for me, the promise of WASM was to make the browser "just another platform". Now it's "this special platform where you have to access some of the most important functionality through FFI interop with a very high-level, very opinionated language".

> Of course architecturally (also regarding your file access) it's better to use the wasm for logic as much as possible where the web (HTML/JS) provides the UI and IO, data flows into wasm for work and results flow back to the web.

OK, but like, I wanted the browser to be "just another platform". I don't want to use JS, and I consider HTML orthogonal to my logic. I realize that's not where we're at, but that's what I dreamt of. Hence my disappointment. Which is OK, I don't matter :)

> This also has the benefit that you can keep your original C/C++ source code much more platform agnostic which helps reusability and testing.

It feels the opposite to me.

[jayd16]

Hmm well I guess I don't quite get what counts as "just another platform." Surely every platform is going to have the native APIs that you need to abstract over. Why is WASM different?

Is it just a matter of WASM being too new to have full featured wrappers and APIs for your language of choice?