WebAssembly

As explained in the high-level goals, to achieve a Minimum Viable Product, the initial focus is on C/C++.

quake3 has been compiling c code into portable mods since 18 years ago. they could have just used that.

wtf is your question exactly?

>>2
why didn't they just use the quake3 thing

>>3
Assigning randomly occurring events to a "they" is the gateway to antisemitism.

Java already implements a virtual machine and has a browser plugin.

>>3
Little endian kikes are behind "the quake3 thing" and WebAssembly.

They're making it harder for people who use goy-endian CPUs.

>>5
The kikes hate Java. All Java .class file binary data is in the natural goy-endian (aka big endian).

Goy-endian was chosen as network byte-order because it was the only byte order that existed at the time. It was the original natural order. Nobody had to byte swap. There was no backwards little kike-endian. The Xerox Alto was goy-endian. 68k was goy-endian.

The kikes switched everything around and the world became backwards. IBM was a famous goy-endian company. Everything from the 5100 to mainframes was all goy-endian. They picked kike-endian Intel and look where they are now. Out of the PC market.

>>7

Nobody had to byte swap

Check your big-endian privilege.

>>1

they could have just used that.

They wanted it to be 'open' (read: human-readable but with unclear licensing) and 'lispy', though.

WEBASSEMBLY JUST TAKES THE TERROR OF C DESKTOP PROGRAMING TO WEB SCIENCE!!! BIG MISTAKE MUST NOT HAPPEN

>>7
I have no fucking idea what the hell you're high on, but little endian is logical. Big endian is backwards.

Bit n has value 2ⁿ. Byte n has value 256ⁿ. It couldn't get any simpler than that.

>>11
because this is the opposite of how we read numbers in real life, where digit n has value 10¹ and digit 1 has value 10ⁿ. the way we do it IRL might not be logical but we're used to it and trying to change it to a 'better' approach would just end like metric time units

>>11
Honestly I have to agree with cudder on this one. Little endian is far more intuitive in that for example a pointer to a larger integer will still be valid if used as a pointer to a smaller integer so long as the value is less than the max range of the smaller integer type. With big endian it just becomes zero.

The only thing even slightly counter intuitive about little endian is that the data looks "backwards" when you view it in a hex editor, but that's only because humans also write numbers in "big endian", which is dumb and backwards too. I feel that the number "1488" should actually be written "8841", because that's how we write words: the first letter comes first. If I want to make a word longer I can keep sticking letters to the end of it without changing the meaning of the preceding letters, but with the current "big endian" system sticking extra digits onto the end also changes the meaning of all the preceding digits by powers of ten, which is totally backwards and weird when you think about it.

>>11
What if byte != 8 bits?
Good luck then, lol

>>14
It would still make sense in that byte n would equal 2^number of bits in byte^n. Nice job completely missing the point mongloid.

>>13
Writing systems are big-endian because the most significant letter comes first. The reason the meaning of preceding letters in a word doesn't change when you append new ones to it is because the "radix point" is located before the word. The same applies to decimal numbers: the first 3 in 0.3141 doesn't change even if you continue the number to infinity.

>>13

Little endian is far more intuitive in that for example a pointer to a larger integer will still be valid if used as a pointer to a smaller integer so long as the value is less than the max range of the smaller integer type. With big endian it just becomes zero.

So it's more intuitive because it makes more unintentional bugs? Big endian fails fast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-fast). If you get all zeroes, you will know there's a problem. Little endian looks like it works until your value is too large. If you want to lose the most significant bits, it's just as easy to do it with big endian.

I feel that the number "1488" should actually be written "8841", because that's how we write words: the first letter comes first.

Do you pronounce that as "eight, eighty, four hundred, one thousand"?

If I want to make a word longer I can keep sticking letters to the end of it without changing the meaning of the preceding letters

You write and pronounce words with the most significant part first. Significant, significance, signify. That's big endian.

Big-endian only makes sense for writing numbers because our number representation is essentially arbitrary-precision, not fixed-width. If we used decimal integers the same way computers used binary integers, if you want to use a word size of 5 digits for example, you would write decimal 23 as 00023. Which doesn't make sense if you were to store that decimal 23 in digit-addressable memory, because even if you KNOW in advance that the number you're looking for has only two places, you'll need to adjust the base address by +3 if you want to look at the first actual digit of the number. In little-endian, you don't have that problem, no matter what width a value is stored in, you're guaranteed that the pointer to the base of an object doesn't point at a "placeholder" value.

>>15
This would fuck up communication with other systems.

>>16

the most significant letter comes first

I think it's hard to say which letters of a word are most "significant". If you grab a pen to write with but someone appends 'is' to it that's a pretty significant change for you. The order makes sense because you pronounce the "pen" part of the word first, not because it's most significant.

decimal numbers

I would propose the order be switched for decimal numbers too, if anything to fit with the order of my proposed little endian integers. You would still have to parse all the way to the decimal point before gaining any useable information, but this is already the case with the current system.

>>17

So it's more intuitive because it makes more unintentional bugs?

No, it's more intuitive just because it makes since that if I have 5 and then I disregard some empty space I still have 5. If endianess is regularly helping you detect pointer casting errors then you are already screwed.

Do you pronounce that as "eight, eighty, four hundred, one thousand"?

I'm arguing that maybe we should.

>>12,13,16,
The Arabs invented base 10 and our digits, and they used them in Arabic, a right-to-left language, so the least significant part was read first. Its the Europeans who fucked up when they decided to use them too, but forgot to reverse the order to make it consistent with left-to-right languages.

>>21
Arabs? Invented Arabic numerals? You're so ignorant you're laughable.

Can Cudder ever stop sucking x86 cock? Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion

>>22
Keep believing in white supremacy alt-facts, bro.

>>22
Good argument

>>24,25
It was the Hindus you imbeciles.

>>20

I think it's hard to say which letters of a word are most "significant"

The answer seems obvious to me: in lexicographic order, the leftmost letters are compared first, ergo they are the most significant.