Companies will ask their developers to deliver WASM resources in the name of performance. As a notable side-effect, it will become harder to review how websites work.
Yes, I'm sure there will be reverse-compilation tools for WASM, but still.
It is possible to disable half of the paywalls on the web just by looking at the JS code. I can see why certain parties would push really hard to introduce Webassembly. The performance argument is just a pretext because today's jit compilers for Javascript are really good.
Shhh! Don't tell them!
In practice, there's nothing that WebAssembly offers that could hinder analysis even further. If websites want to be transparent they could provide the sources (akin to providing unminified/unobfuscated JavaScript).
And minified JS isn't particularly more reviewable I think
webassembly is encouraging websites to dump megabytes of binary code in browsers.
Obfuscated, analysis-resistant code to ensure that people cannot disable ads and tracking.
It's appalling that we are accepting this.
For example, it doesn't support arbitrary computed goto:s. Instead it supports block-based control flow, where the semantics can either create blocks or jump out of them to lower down blocks. This makes it possible to construct a CFG statically, which isn't possible if it did support arbitrary computed goto:s.