When you say that I could not explain how would it be different, maybe I just did not notice your response which is why I did not respond (and the last response is where you asked how is having JS as bytecode that different from any other bytecode).
How would it be different? I mean it's not that I insist on the bytecode for the sake of having bytecode (I kind of hint at that several times in the last thread, but I guess I could have been more explicit). It's more that I feel that some sort of fundamental change in the way that web applications are built is necessary. Why? I don't think that JS & DOM scripting can be pushed that much further, like I'm having a hard time imagining that say 5-10 years down the line JS applications will be able to compete with native, somewhat computationally heavy applications (which is what I assumed was the direction in which this whole web thing was going). Today, when I open some site which is written as a SPA (e.g. HootSuite) in Chrome, within a couple of minutes, the CPU goes to 100% (on i7). And that is an application that is not really doing anything that computationally expensive. And it's not just HootSuite.
So yeah, I don't really care that much about bytecode, and I realize that some change would not happen overnight. Do I have concrete steps how to achieve this? Can't say that I do.
You're still not getting it. Native (i.e. compiled from C/C++) computationally-heavy applications is exactly what asm.js allows!
The fact that it's a subset of JS is a clever hack that gets over the backwards-compatibility problems, but don't let that fool you -- asm.js really is a low-level compilation target.