>"At the end of the day all it would take is one of the 3 major browser vendors to offer an alternative."
You mean like Dart?
Besides, languages that target WebAssembly are almost certainly going to evolve to fit that space.
You mean like Dart?
Besides, languages that target WebAssembly are almost certainly going to evolve to fit that space.
The idea that all of sudden there is going to be a rush to push compiled/closed sites after so many very successful years of using free-and-open stacks seems rather non-logical to me.
Time will tell.
Sorry, this ship has sailed.
Well, then we have minified JS that isn't exactly readable. Similarly with multiple-compiled JSX-to-ES6-to-ES5/JS code.
Also, there's a number of JS obfuscators, whose main purpose is to smuggle a piece of closed code into those theoretically “free-and-open” stacks.
Thus, I think, after wasm becomes generally supported, there will be more incentive to write code in your language of choice and compile it to a common platform, than to write code in JS or one of its derivatives and minify/compile it anyway.
It's worth noting WebAssembly isn't compiled into a form only computers can understand. There are plans to offer 'View Source'-style functionality for WebAssembly. WASM is a compressed AST rather than hardware-specific bytecode.
And are already but now targeting JS. Like PureScript, ReasonML, Elm and even TypeScipt to some extend.