V8 Release v8.6
v8.dev
v8.dev
I looked around the web and found this:
https://github.com/appcypher/awesome-wasm-langs
...which led me to this:
https://github.com/AssemblyScript/assemblyscript
Its description is awesome: "Definitely not a TypeScript to WebAssembly compiler :rocket:"
The thing that makes me most not want to miss the boat on WebAssembly so far is that Figma uses it (with C++):
Right. The actual reason you see all the big companies loving WebAssembly is that now you can fully have cross-platform black-box DRM binaries running on every browser. But of course what could possibly go wrong?
It is another Adobe® Flash® that is controlled by the big tech companies rather than just one.
WebAssembly is not another Flash. It might allow someone to create something that resembles Flash, but WebAssembly itself is not. You might as well criticise C because people can write DRM with it.
It’s not a tiny difference, and skepticism is not necessarily unfounded.
I think the population that consumes YouTube in general is much larger than the population that consumes paid content with DRM, and there would be a much larger pushback if webpages like YouTube started to be distributed in compiled format.
WebAssembly changes none of those things.
Ruffle [0] is written in rust, compiles to webassembly, and already can play a reasonably sized subset of flash correctly at their intended speed.
It does allow blackbox libraries. So does compiling to JavaScript though. Really it just means that the black box binaries are (even) faster than the white box scripts.
This release has some really cool WASM stuff, but at the same time this post hit the front page, it sits beside other posts about Mozilla shuttering projects.
The DOJ needs to bar Google from having a browser or any say in browser technology. These people are ruining our web.
Google is slowly turning the web into WeChat. It's horrifying to watch it unfold. Approved bundles, no URLs, everything hosted on AMP, and deeply embedded ads. We're about to lose one of the most free and democratic technologies forever. All so that Google can enrich itself.
Without the Mozilla team creating a credible, Windows-based rival, and subsequently Google creating Chrome, the Web would look really different today.
I'm sorry, but how exactly is anything in Chrome stopping that?
Meanwhile we have government and banking websites that say "This browser is unsupported" when viewed with any browser other than Chrome. These are essential services forcing us to consolidate under Google.
Many websites break as Firefox and Safari add new privacy protections. The websites don't care: if they can't track you then they often don't want you viewing their content anyway. In some cases they'd rather things break so that Mozilla and Apple reconsider their efforts toward privacy.
The other comment mentions that we survived MSFT, so everything will be fine. This is naive. When IE6 had a monopoly Microsoft let it stagnate. The web basically didn't change for ten years; sure there were new standards but nobody could use them because they wouldn't work in IE6. It also wasn't nearly as complicated as it is today, so it was possible for other browsers to catch up.
Google today is doing the opposite. They are steering the web in all sorts of new directions massively increasing its complexity, and they are forcing automatic updates everywhere to make sure IE6 doesn't happen. All of this means it's next to impossible for other browser vendors to keep up. Microsoft has already given up and adopted Blink. How long do you think Apple will hold out? How long do you think Google will keep bankrolling Mozilla?
So your solution seems to be hobble the successful company so the weaker companies can compete? Maybe we should also prevent strong athletes from using their strengths and skills because other people don't have the same strengths and skills? Should we prevent smart people from using the brains because some people's brains don't function as well?
Maybe there's a different argument against Chrome but Google adding features to the Chrome is certainly not an argument against Chrome.
However, if you'll permit me to suggest one, I don't think getting the government involved is a bad idea at all. Google is financially successful not because of their browser but because of tracking-based advertising, a largely unrelated market. They use that funnel of cash to expand into a separate market, that of the browser, in order to cement their position of power in web advertising. This sort of anti-competitive behaviour is exactly why antitrust regulations exist.
Your "Harrison Bergeron" allusion is almost a total non-sequitor. Nobody suggested hobbling Google because of their success. It's because of the damage they are doing to the web. The OP gave many examples of this that you seem to have ignored.
I saw no examples of Google's evil from the OP
> Approved bundles,
what is this?
> no URLs,
This is from Apple, not Google. Chrome is just following what Safari has been doing for years.
> everything hosted on AMP
Arguable either way
> and deeply embedded ads.
not sure what this or how it's evil
Happy to be enlightened
I do hope Firefox survives. I think it's really important for the web to have multiple implementations. But lets not pretend this is as bad as the IE situation.
Nobody seems to really care too much about ChromeOS niche.
Mainstream users don't care about any of this and just want things to work. Open source allows other people to take something in a better direction when the original project stops "just working".