On 06/18/2015 01:41 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 11:00:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
they will never stop, won't they? "modern web: building piles of shit
on top of piles of shit". (sigh)
Indeed.
«Even before browsers ship native support for WebAssembly, developers
can ship applications on the Web using a polyfill which converts
WebAssembly to JavaScript. »
Great, so it'll have the same fundamental problem as asm.js: Claims to
be backwards compatible, but really isn't because the backwards fallback
method is likely to be prohibitively slow and will especially fuck
mobile browsers that use the fallback.
Basically binary asm.js... What are they thinking?
Maybe this suggestion demonstrates ignorance, but I'm thinking "They
should just use LLVM IR. It already exists." Maybe toss in some LLVM IR
extensions as needed, and boom, done.
But the web world has always been so very NIH-syndrome, though.
And whyyyyyyy are they calling a binary format "assembly"?
Probably because .NET/Mono have already established the name "assembly"
for that sort of thing. That'd be my guess. They could call it an
"object file" but that would intuitively suggest something more along
the lines of ELF/COFF/whatever, which I assume isn't quite what they
have in mind.
