Skip to content

Comment on WebAssembly adoption: Is slow and steady winning the race?parent

Comments

That's of course an option if you're fine with your deployables being architecture- and OS-dependent, and very often that's the case.

But for when it's not, I think a platform-independent and language-agnostic bytecode standard is a valuable thing to have.

In the extreme scenario where you want to run arbitrary untrusted code on arbitrary machines, that would be useful, but wasm isn’t a solution for that.

If I need to specifically support how certain languages compile to wasm (meaning I don’t support arbitrary wasm) then what’s the point?

It’s just Java applets again.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.