• Pankkake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    There’s a push towards WebAssembly. Officially it’s not supported yet, but most browsers can handle it. I don’t know how mature the project is though.

    But yeah, essentially everything on the web is JS.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sure, but you can get frameworks that generate that for you. I’ve written whole webpages in WASM without writing any JS.

        You don’t get around reading JS documentation, though. Especially the DOM API is just documented as JS, and you basically hope that your framework makes it obvious enough how to write that in your non-JS language of choice.

        • Static_Rocket@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is exactly the reason why I can’t believe that was ever a requirement. I would have crazy respect for webassembly if it could stand on it’s own as it would allow people to completely move away from JS, but if JS is still in the stack in any way it will introduce a (even if it is minimal) compatibility and maintenance cost in the long run.

          • Ephera@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I used to think so, too, but on the one hand, the DOM API is absolutely massive. Going through the standardization, implementation and documentation process another time would take decades.

            And on the other hand, a language-agnostic API in WebAssembly would mean specifying it WebAssembly itself. And well, it’s Assembly-like, so what’s currently a single line for calling a JS function would turn into tens of lines of low-level code.

            Ultimately, you’d want code from some other high-level language to give you a summary of how you may need to call your language-specific wrapper. In practice, that’s likely even worse than translating it from JS, because the high-level call isn’t standardized.

      • lseif@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        i believe they plan to remove that requirement? at least i know they are trying to use a native wasm<->dom api instead of wasm<->js<->dom, which is slow

        • Static_Rocket@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Big if true, do you have a link to follow that development? I’ve been curious about some languages that compile to JS+WASM but I’ve been waiting for something like this to finally cut out the middle man and give me an excuse to learn WASM directly.