Hacker News Reader

Comment by j-pb | Hacker News Reader

WASM makes browsers simpler, not more complex. It's much easier to get the implementation of a 20 page spec correct, than the combinatorial monster that is 200 highlevel language specs and APIs. The more we can push into a small formal core, the better. Formal verification tools call this the de Bruijn criterion. You create a small formal core for your proof system, and everything highlevel just compiles to that.

View on HN

> It's much easier to get the implementation of a 20 page spec correct

JS spec was also 20 pages. Until we got modern Javascript.

wasm spec will grow. Just look at the roadmap: https://webassembly.org/roadmap/

Feature creep is an orthogonal issue that I 100% agree with. We need to stay vigilant and push back against bloat wherever possible. Exceptions are a mistake imho, memory64 is an absolute must have otoh.

Surely that is a noble goal!

But isn't it a case of XKCD 927? https://xkcd.com/927/

I.e. I would say the probability is zero that because WASM exists other existing complexity of browsers will be removed.

Because the web is so vast, if you once add a feature to browsers you can never remove it because that would break an unknown amount of websites, or even intranet sites.

So now we have wasm + N other subsystems, so N+1, and the security of N+1 systems is less than that of N.

We break/deprecate the web all the time. Web backwards compatibility is a myth, it's just that wo don't get any calls from the 90s complaining that their dogs website broke.

How long have you been using the Web?

ActiveX? DYNSRC? Frames? Flash? How about Gopher support? Capabilities being removed is a time-honored tradition in the browser world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com