Is webassembly the future of web browser scripting?

It translates from C to asm.js

>>20
Would you rather prefer we stay with Javashit for the rest of our lives? At least WebAssembly would make web development somewhat sane.

>>27
Lay down the Hackerjews, it's rotting your brain. Browser scripting (i.e. executing random programs from the internet) isn't a law of nature, nobody forces you to do it. You aren't forced to choose between retarded shit in JS and retarded shit in WA. Just don't choose retarded shit.

>>27
There isn't any reason to think WebAssembly will make web development any more sane. It's main advantage is being more compact than JS, thus making it easier to download and faster to run. Since actually writing in WebAssembly is unimaginably horrible by modern standards, it will encourage compiling from HLLs, but that isn't really an ``advantage", we can already compile C++ to Javascript, and if Javascript was as bad a development language as the memers say it is, everyone would be doing that already. Furthermore, given how many Javascript programmers there are (see: node.js), it's quite likely that we'll end up just compiling JavaScript to WebAssembly. It's also going to be a long time before it becomes widespread, so targeting WebAssembly for a tiny performance advantage is silly, when you're going to need to provide a JS fallback anyways if you want your code to be portable. It ultimately won't do anything that Java applets couldn't, except maybe have a security policy that doesn't push the boundaries of retardation.

>>29

we can already compile C++ to Javascript

Yeah, you can totally do

unsigned long long

arithmetic in Javascript without overflowing at 20 + 20. It's also going to be as fast as native and it's not going to rape your Core i7 at all.

Javascript was as bad a development language as the memers say it is, everyone would be doing that already.

By your logic, no one would ever program in bad programming languages like PHP, Lua or JS. The web is a special case where everyone is forced to program in JS because there's literally no other choice. Even cross-compiling won't save you from all-floats or no lexical scope without incurring in additional overhead.

You're right about the rest, though that's due to the web being a great idea of having easily accessible ultra portable applications executed in the worst way possible.

>>30
What are you even trying to say here? >>29-san isn't wrong just because you randomly introduced new requirements. The fuck kind of requirements are these anyway? For small scripting Javashit is fast enough, compilation target or not; do you like the whole webapp garbage?
By the way, while floating-point for everything is the dumbest design decision of all time, doubles can do integer arithmetic without problems up to 2⁵³. Not long long range, but floating-point numbers aren't the magic datatype from hell that corrupts random computations.