On: Towards a JavaScript Binary AST

[Yoric → dmitriid]

Yes, dmitriid, I believe it's clear by now that you don't like this project.

As I mentioned in another conversation, if you feel you can contribute to Wasm and make it solve the problems we are solving here, this is great, by all means, please do so.

In the meantime, we are going to continue trying to solve some of the performance problems of the web using the techniques discussed in the blog entry because we are convinced that they are going to work better.

[wiremine → dmitriid]

I haven't tracked WASM closely, so this is an honest question.

Are you saying this comment is false?

> I am not aware of any project that achieves compilation of JavaScript to wasm

I.e., Javascript to WASM is on the roadmap and something we can use in the next few years? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

[dmitriid → wiremine]

I'm saying that the whole idea of this project is built on top of false assumptions, and any counterarguments are dismissed.

[kuschku → dmitriid]

> So, your article is FUD in it's purest undistilled form.

The article is just reiterating an argument that Mozilla and Facebook made. If you’re saying Mozilla and Facebook are spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt with their proposal for a binary JS AST, then you may do so, but please realize that they probably had good reasons to start such a project.

EDIT: Even though I disagree with the parent, it is making some good points (specifically, that WebASM is going to add a GC), so flagging it to death doesn’t seem to be the right thing to do.

[dmitriid → kuschku]

"If big boys do it, it must be right" is a feeble argument

[lllr_finger → dmitriid]

You're obviously passionate about this; I'd personally be interested in seeing some more concrete points detailing exactly why this is bad.

[dmitriid → lllr_finger]

Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045697

I'd like to see why it is good, given efforts with WebAsembly