Should I get into WebAssembly? Is it hard? Where to start?

>>59541173
because you have to ask, no you should not get into webassembly

>>59541416
this, OP >>59541173

if you don't write a compiler backend it's useless.

>>59541716
But isn't it going to be like a major think next to javascript or something for the web?

>>59541785
It's a target for compilers. So unless you
a. write a compiler that targets WASM or
b. write a VM that executes WASM (and that may even exist without the browser ecosystem or even the JS interpreter attached)
you as a web dev won't touch it.

its not even close to being ready to use yet

>>59541785
No

>>59541855
/thread

>>59541848
Alright then. Pretty cut and dry. Weird that nobody in /sqt/ could just say that.

>>59541173
It's not what its name lets on.

>>59541876
It's because /g/ is retarded and you usually shouldn't ask here for advice if you actually want a sane opinion.
Also >>59541855
wait until direct DOM access and garbage collection are supported.
As soon as that happens and it isn't botched and nongarbage languages like C# can target it, JS will mostly disappear thanks to the ~2 year lifecicle of most web ebbs.

Kinda like asking if you should write java bytecode by hand. It wasn't intended for that, you compile applications written in higher level programming langauges like C or C++ down to webassembly and it runs in the same sandbox as javascript. It's more efficient though

>>59541876
>Weird that nobody in /sqt/ could just say that.

The only people that go to those threads are other people trying to have their stupid questions answered.

>>59542017
This. If I have a stupid question, I will google the answer.
If I have a more complicated question, a new thread is perfectly fine for it. (Though this hasn't happened in ages.)

>>59541921
>>59541989
>>59541173
Oh, another scenario - in which you shouldn't have to ask - is if you are security """"researcher"""" and want to test the bytecode verification of existing WASM VMs.