Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Jun 2015 16:15 UTC
General Development

But the people calling for a bytecode for the browser never went away, and they were never entirely wrong about the perceived advantages. And now they're going to get their wish. WebAssembly is a new project being worked on by people from Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, and Apple, to produce a bytecode for the Web.

WebAssembly, or wasm for short, is intended to be a portable bytecode that will be efficient for browsers to download and load, providing a more efficient target for compilers than plain JavaScript or even asm.js. Like, for example, .NET bytecode, wasm instructions operate on native machine types such as 32-bit integers, enabling efficient compilation. It's also designed to be extensible, to make it easy to add, say, support for SIMD instruction sets like SSE and AVX.

Permalink for comment 612800
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Even with JIT...
by deathshadow on Sun 21st Jun 2015 11:58 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

1) It is NOT Assembly, even CALLING it Assembly is ignorant halfwit nonsense and insulting to anyone who ever actually learned machine language. As someone who started out hand assembling my own RCA 1802 machine language and entering it on toggle switches -- and who STILL writes 8088 and 6502 machine language today -- them even using the term borders on offensive!

Is it processor specific? Is it using opcodes that ACTUALLY correspond to hardware specific machine language instructions? NO? THEN IT'S NOT ASSEMBLY!!!

Just like the "virtual machine" BS, it's an interpreter that may someday have a JIT compiler. It's bad enough Java went and made up some BS claims about what it is, without this "new" technology abusing a term that has little if anything to do with what it is. ... and yes, that's me making air quotes with my fingers around "new"

It's ALMOST as ignorant as the nitwits who call XML a "machine readable format" or think that base64 is a native efficient storage method. (the latter only being true if you're still on a PDP-11) -- Makes those of us who actually understand these terms and used them when they MEANT SOMETHING feel like delivering a pimp slap to the current generation.

Hell, given some of the idiocy I've seen cross-processor transcoders and P-Code interpreters do, and the history of BS claims about speed from previous attempts (like Java) that still have zero basis in reality, I'm not entirely hopeful on this.

That said, it's about damned time there was a bytecode transmission method for scripttardery; except for one little problem.

2) the LAST thing we need right now is MORE scripttard BS pissing away functionality, bandwidth and accessibility of websites. IT's bad enough people crapping all over their websites with mouth-breathing idiocy like jQuery and ignoring the very reason HTML and CSS even exist with dumbass bull like bootcrap, without giving them YET ANOTHER way to add "gee ain't it neat" nonsense to websites like all the other web crapplet asshattery that has effectively made websites today a fraction as useful and often slower than they were 20 years ago.

But of course, such sensibilities are lost upon the mouth-breathing halfwits sleazing together websites any-old-way with shortcuts and outright scam artist bull like Turdpress, bootcrap and jQueery -- since they see nothing wrong with wasting 3 megabytes in six to eight dozen separate files to deliver 5k of plaintext and a dozen content images that shouldn't even total 128k.

Of course, they'll probably also use the SCRIPT tag for it or want their own tag, just like the idiotic redundancies that the 5-tard bull introduced with AUDIO and VIDEO, instead of using the tag meant to fight vendor lock-in called OBJECT. Yay for bleeding edge of pre-strict coding methodologies! Nothing like dragging everything back to the WORST of the 1997 to 2000 browser wars.

3) ... and get off my damned lawn!

Edited 2015-06-21 11:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2