You can make 90% of people afraid of XYZ, if you write a sufficient amount of text "explaining" how dangerous XYZ is.
Sure, we might not get to geek out over the best and latest software and standards, but we're not going to bleed over the leading edge when it fails. I'm happy to give it more time to demonstrate its various modes of failure.
In a year or two, I'll revisit turning javascript.options.wasm back on in FireFox. And if by that time it proves that it is trustworthy and necessary? Yes, I'm quite happy to enable it!
Calling it useless in a world where most people are running JS is also weird, but that's more subjective.
> Better execution for languages and toolkits that are currently cross-compiled to the Web (C/C++, GWT, …).
> Image / video editing.
> Games
> Peer-to-peer applications
> ...
In my view it's trying to create a safe sandbox for things that we previously used unsafe sandboxes (Flash, Java, Silverlight etc.) for. A standard interface for all of these will be much better for everyone.