Hacker News Reader

Comment by systems | Hacker News Reader

does this mean i wont have to learn javascript, css, d3, svg, typescript, jquery, etc ... to make webistes and web apps

You don't need any of those to make websites and web apps already (or to be less pednantic, you don't need most of those) so I'm not sure what your question is.

No idea why this was downvoted, you are correct.

Furthermore d3, typescript and jquery is javascript so the question is more like "do I need to learn how to use tools to make websites?" at which point it is kind of silly.

They're being downvoted because show me useful website that doesn't have any of those things. Yes, it's technically correct to say that you don't need any of those things, but totally pedantic because you WILL use any number of them for ANY real website.

Here you go: http://arxiv.org

No javascript needed to make a perfectly functional, efficient and useful website. Maybe it doesn't fit into your description of a "real" website?

Uses CSS, though. Which is also on that list.

Most if not all use CSS and javascript, but he mentioned a ton of techniques in such a way as to imply that most websites use all of them or that you needed to know all of them to do web development.

That is just not true. I am sure that most web developers don't know d3, svg (other than exporting it from a drawing program) or typescript.

Think of all the technologies you have to learn to make Desktop or Mobile Apps, or both. You'll need a language to compile to Web Assembly. Then you'll need a target display layer: DOM, SVG-DOM or Canvas. DOM support for text and user interaction is way better than SVG or Canvas.

Yes, in the future you will be able to programm your Website in C++ and OpenGl (2.0) and export it to WebAssembler and WebGL, if you think this will be easier ...

edit: this might actually work for some people, once you can access dom elements directly, but for now it is meant for huge WebApps, like games in the browser

No one said it will be easier. It is meant to be faster.

But he said it, like it might be easier for him, to avoid learning html and co in the first place ... To which I would say, if you are allready a pro at designing UI-Elements in OpenGL and c++, then yeah, otherwise probably no.

No, most things will still be done in javascript as the benefit of doing it in Wasm is negligible.

If you're targetting HTML, you will likely need at least CSS... most JS is optional, and there are compile-to options.

That said, this should allow you to target a canvas element, with minimal JS binder to wasm code... all logic including what gets rendered could be outside JS... but you'd have to think of and control all input/output, and there are other considerations for rendering performance.

You are talking about a step in a specific direction.

If you make few more steps in that direction, you can simply write your own operating system, make native apps for it and then call it all "a website", because you can run it in a browser using e.g. this JS computer simulator https://copy.sh/v86/

You'll still need to learn CSS and SVG as they are web techs, but you wont have to learn anything related to Javascript anymore. As for now Javascript has become irrelevant for good.

You still need these languages/technologies and libraries.

From my understanding, WebAssembly won't have DOM access. So it certainly won't replace jQuery, D3 or CSS any time soon.

It will eventually, iirc

WebAssembly doesn't intend to replace jQuery, D8, or CSS. However, we definitely plan to enable efficient DOM access. Doing so requires supporting some sort of native Garbage Collection, as well as the concept of opaque reference types. See more here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/GC.md

Any specific plans for python support?

Python is just another language VM. C Python should work just fine in WebAssembly, and bridging the APIs to the web (e.g. filesystem, etc) is already possible through Emscripten.

We don't plan to do things for WebAssembly, we plan to make WebAssembly powerful enough that anyone can run their language VM :-)

Gotcha!

That's awesome and means alongside ObjectiveC, I effectively waited out deep diving on 2 (soon to be) formerly popular programming languages. I get to use my preferred language, Python, for even more.

I think what they meant is that they could use python without having to also ship the implementation like CPython. I mean, that thing is huge. How is it feasible to serve 10mb for a website?

Yes, thats what I meant.

The article specifically mentions first class DOM manipulation as one of the next goals. That's been part of the plan from the start. Maybe you're thinking of web workers?

Yeah, you could program in C++...

Or julia. Which is 1000th better than js

Julia would still require the garbage collector but I don't think the downvotes here are fair at all. If there was a language that would be a natural transition to people used to javascript but wanting native speed, julia would be it. In a way it is a glimpse of what javascript could have been given a lot of experience and much more design.

So how big are the Julia binaries? Would it still need a VM?

At the moment actually that would be a pretty big problem, the dependencies are very large, mostly because that hasn't been a priority I think.

There has been work released recently which allows programs to be compiled to native binaries if they aren't dynamically evaluating anything however.

Yea I meant the native binaries in the recent ahead of time compilation work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com