Converting python code to WASM would cause even less performance than JavaScript.
The only reason to do something like this is if you only know Python and refuse to use anything else.
vs on the web, javascript is built in, and you have to specifically go out of your way to use something else (which be a worse experience than the one that's already built in*)
*idk, i don't have personal experience, but i think that's the reasoning at least
Granted to various degrees. Running Python, Ruby or PHP in the browser requires shipping a interpreter compiled to WASM and is indeed a lot of overhead, however compare and contrast that with say C, Rust, Dart, C++, Kotlin or C# which all have dedicated WASM compilation story’s which ship native WebAssembly bytecode without the interpreter overhead.
For a lot of those languages they are on an equal footing to JS in every non DOM manipulation context and only getting better overtime as more and more WASM proposals start to move through the standardisation process unlocking better performance and capabilities.
I think in that particular light, it’s very hard to see JS holding the same privileged position on the web it traditionally has. A new generation of languages are emerging which are much much nicer to work with.
> much nicer to work with than JavaScript
Glorified assembly, if war crime was a language and a marketing tool to promote JetBrains IDEs that barely works outside of JVM. Truly nice way to work!
"Line noise programming languages"
That's not even true except in the sense that the browser will (most likely) run it (well, some subset of it...). Compilation or transpilation of a language are not considered to be "going out of your way", unless you only program in assembly. And even JS-based stacks tend to have some form of compilation step to gather and process 'assets bundles'. So why not use a modern language that has more web-oriented features than JS?
Oh, I've been plenty chided for wanting to use Node on the server, and not something faster like Go. Although you may have included web backend into 'the web'.
The people who are pushing for Python in the browser are going to be in for a shock when they realize how inconvenient Python's indentation is to deal with.
The people who are pushing for Python in the browser are generally extremely familiar with Python, its indentation, and how silly this argument is.
It opens up a whole new can of worms.
You can certainly have an aesthetic or philosophical issue with it, but you said “inconvenient” which is a practical concern.
What are the good parts? When you only have a hammer, everything is going to resemble a nail.
Javascript was designed to manipulate the DOM and bring a bit of interactivity to otherwise static web pages.
It wasn't designed to write applications in. Nor it was designed to be used for web backend, mobile software and desktop software.
It's like some people try to write everything in Bash and protest when some other people want to use other languages.
For some people it's offensive even if you try to use some other language to write desktop and mobile apps.
I also don’t see many people complaining about native gui toolkits, they just silently use their cross platform stuff and that’s it.
The ignorance and prejudice of most developers are staggering. They simply think "Javascript is shit", and all their arguments boil down to jokes about NaN and the weird behavior of ==. JS is (by far) not a jewel of a PL but it's telling that those people don't know anything about the real cursed and weird parts of JS (such as: eval does not behave the same depending on how you call it...).
of course, LLMs, with their nascent ability to translate code into different languages, makes the question of rewriting something in a different language more tractable, but it's still a hike.
Additionally, browser JS adheres to a quite strict backwards compatibility requirements. Python can and does deprecate and remove APIs, and I would imagine the community would not like to lose that flexibility.
WASM is probably the best bet here, in that it provides a well-specified low-level target, such that the door is open for other languages for anyone who is allergic to learning/using javascript.
JS and backwards compatibility gave me a chuckle...try hanging out on the web in IE11.
An existing codebase can certainly be an obstacle in adopting a PL but I don't think that's the main motivation in practice.
> of course, LLMs, with their nascent ability to translate code into different languages, makes the question of rewriting something in a different language more tractable, but it's still a hike.
Entirely agree. In my current company there's quite a bit of reluctance to spend some bucks to have good tools and I resent it. Rewriting (quickly!) some Python into say, C++, would be absolutely great.
That's because that's a non issue, as you shouldn't be calling eval in the first place.
Python is not that different from Typescript. Neither can be interpreted by the browser. Both can be compiled into JS or WASM to be run in the browser.