Will it be standard?
Something become a standard in the technical sense and something becoming standard in the informal sense are two completely different things. There are countless standards that have little to no adoption.
A standard? Yes. Widely adopted? Fuck no.
No, because the JS and PHP ecosystems have such a head start on available resources and libraries.
With a lot of web dev it's not about what's "best", it's about what can be done with quickly and efficiently. Using existing libraries and the huge amount of knowledge on SO means that JS and PHP aren't going anywhere, anytime soon. Integration with both of them with backend Java is also a known quantity.
Also, in practical terms very little of the web is resource intensive to the point where you'd want to start trying to squeeze out the last drops of performance, and you're still bottlenecked by the connection speed and device on the client side.
It's like putting a racing engine and spoiler in a city bus: It's high performance and faster, sure... But you're still making the same scheduled stops and doing five under the speed limit.
It'll do fine in its own little niches.
>>52254411
I thought html5 was the result of this
Is it webdev in assembly?
God I hope not. JS should die, not become even more of a cancer.
>>52254520
The name for these are known as formalized standards and de facto standards. Microsoft Office is a de facto office productivity standard in the workplace.
>>52255430
Nope, just a binary compressed AST of JS semantics the browser can unpack.
>>52255430
>>52254569
>>52255418
Web assembly is for web client scripting. This web assembly standard is not intended to be executed by the web server.
Isn't this bad for the user?
If js gets compiled web assembly which is not human readable then we are how can we know which script is actually harmful?
>>52255609
You already can't with regular compressed js that good.
However, since WebAssemby encodes JS semantics, it can be compiled back on demand in the browser dev tools.
>>52255609
The browser is supposed to create a dmz and stop any exploits from happening ... :-)
>>52254569
>But you're still making the same scheduled stops and doing five under the speed limit.
like hell
>>52255609
This is already true for Javascript today. Web assembly is no different in this regard.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html
>>52255528
>just a binary compressed AST of JS semantics
so this is literally just to save bandwidth costs and maybe make pages load a little faster?
I'm a systems programmer and not a web dev, but I would have thought that the web would have benefited more from a JS successor that had a sane type system.
>>52255467
What the fuck?
>>52254411
It won't make the web faster. It won't be wildly adopted next like 10 years. Literally a meme.
>>52255806
There already exist other languages that compile to JS, so you can use those.
>>52255467
Do you even know what this is? protip: it is not javascript
>>52255931
Javascript was not designed to be an intermediate language. Web assembly is designed to be an intermediate language. Web assembly exists because Javascript is being used in a way that it is not supposed to be used.
>>52255806
This is for running bytecode inside the browser which will be much faster than any javascript engines.
You can compile code from any language into this bytecode.
>>52254411
>>52255972
>Javascript was not designed to be an intermediate language.
Who cares? It works.
>Web assembly is designed to be an intermediate language.
Again, JavaScript is too famous to simply be replaced.
>>52256014
Google, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla are working on making web assembly the de facto standard.
It won't require any real hassle as javascript can be compiled into web assembly.
>>52255975
is it really bytecode for some standardizes new VM, or is it just a shallow transformation to a denser new syntax carrying the exact same semantics as the old shit?
Want to make the web faster? Just stop loading 5mb worth of tracking and ad scripts. There's absolutely no need to replace js with anything to make the web faster, people just need to stop bloating their pages with shit.
>>52256047
It's really bytecode.
>>52256014
Everybody who has to do serious shit has to deal with it. You're wasting a non-trivial amount of everything by trying to shoehorn Javascript to work as a bytecode intermediate. I'm happy to use Javascript for what it is supposed to be. This is why I care.
>>52256124
You are not. You are writing your front-end and compiling it. This thing already works. If you don't like the language, write in numerous other languages that compile to JS. It's not perfect, it's not even good solution but web assembly won't become a wildly adopted way of doing it any time soon.
>>52256226
Compiling to Javascript works and this is a bad way of doing this work.
Web assembly will be adopted by the virtue that all the major browser writers will support it. Prove me wrong.
>>52256310
Remember, JS engines are very well matured. Writing anything from scratch that will top them will take a lot of time.
>>52256380
Web Assembly is backward compatible with those javascript engines and can run on them for some reason.
I don't know how they do it but Mozilla and Google says it can.
>>52257002
I think you're conflating WebAssembly with asm.js. asm.js is compatible with javascript engines because it's an optimized subset and it was part of Mozilla's (very successful) strategy for forcing the hand of other vendors toward adoption. WebAssembly is the end result of that.
>>52256310
.... Like how Dart has become mainstream because of all the browser support? /s
>>52257476
This doesn't make sense as sarcasm. Dart was only supported in Chrome and wasm is being developed by Mozilla, Google, MS and Apple together.
Does it have anything to do with actual Assembly language, or is it a meme name?
>>52258449
It's an intermediate representation that fills the same role as the "assembly languages" used in VMs for other languages' interpreters and compilers, though I guess in this case they're specifying an AST rather than an actual instruction set. I don't think it started off that way.
Stop shitspamming the word "meme" everywhere.
>>52255972
I'd rather say JS is trying to evolve into something else, that nobody though it should be when it was made.
>>52258326
Dart is supported in IE 9/10/11, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari...
>>52261008
I guess not natively though. Point is you can write once n Dart, and compile it to JS that's run on every major browser, and Dart isn't exactly re writing history.
>>52261008
It isn't. Unless you mean as a compile-to-JS language; in that case this thread may have gone over your head. Dart's unpopular specifically because it never rose above the level of being one more in a slew of them, as other vendors wouldn't integrate native support for it.
>>52261059
"Support" in that form isn't comparable to an emerging standard with serious technical benefits that's being backed by all major browser developers under the aegis of the w3c.
>>52254411
Hopefully
