Web Assembly now supported across all browsers

https://www.infoq.com/news/2017/12/webassembly-browser-support

240 106 9 years ago

TekMol6• 9 years ago

I would try it out, if it would be possible to just type web assembly by hand. Then I would just open an html file or a jsfiddle and play with it.

But as I understand it, it needs a toolchain?

a_humean2• 9 years ago

Yes, WebAssembly is bytecode that is a IR compile target for other languages, which right now is limited to C and C++ via Emscripten, or Rust via its own normal toolchain or Emscripten as well. It has a plain text assembly output called WAT, but its not really meant to be handwritten, but rather reviewed as a build artifact.

You can see an examples in Rust including the readable Wat output here:

https://www.hellorust.com/demos/add/index.html

TekMol6• 9 years ago

If I can't just type it and see the result, I am not much interested. I don't like to install software. As a child of the web, my feet are firmly planted into the cloud.

geokon• 9 years ago

I've got to admit, I'm really clueless about these things

But don't we already have a universal byte code with JVM bytecode?

Why did the wheel need to be reinvented here? Are there fundamental issues with JVM bytecode that make it impossible/impractical to have c++/rust/LLVM compile to it?

This isn't a troll question. I'm curious what are the fundamental underlying technical issues that made WebAssembly necessary

(please be nice... c++ developer here.. so I'm really clueless about web stuff. I don't even use the JVM)

hnarn• 9 years ago

Maybe you'll enjoy this: https://wasdk.github.io/WasmFiddle/

TekMol6• 9 years ago

That's funny.

Never been using C, I guess-coded my way to this little program:

    int pow(a)
    {
     for (int i=0;i<10;i++) a=a*2+1;
     return a;
    }

    int main()
    {
     return pow(1);
    }

And as far as I understand the output, the compiler on the server reduced it to a constant:

    (module
      (table 0 anyfunc)
      (memory $0 1)
      (export "memory" (memory $0))
      (export "pow" (func $pow))
      (export "main" (func $main))
      (func $pow (param $0 i32) (result i32)
        (i32.or
          (i32.shl
            (get_local $0)
            (i32.const 10)
          )
          (i32.const 1023)
        )
      )
      (func $main (result i32)
        (i32.const 2047)
      )
    )

Looking at the wasm code, I really hate it that I cannot edit it by hand and have the browser execute it. That would be fun.

starik362• 9 years ago

across all browsers

IE.

Everywhere I've worked, we still have to support it. Unless Microsoft ports Edge to Windows 7/8 and makes it a default browser, I don't see the situation changing anytime soon.

kowdermeister2• 9 years ago

You can still ship an asm.js version there as a fallback.

jlebrech• 9 years ago

do webassembly compilers also compile the fallback?

golergka• 9 years ago

http://gs.statcounter.com/

I think it's only relevant for business applications, as employees can't just easily switch browsers on their own. Consumer apps and games have a lot more leeway.

krapp4• 9 years ago

It seems like we're never going to get away from the paradigm of developing for the web, then doing something else to cater to Microsoft's backwards problem child.

It's not much different than having to ship a runtime for an app written in languages other than C/C++. WASM apps will just require the use of a proper browser. At some point the world has to cut the cord on IE anyway.

userbinator• 9 years ago

I'll take the contrarian opinion here, and say that that is a good thing, if only for the fact that it "keeps the target from moving too quickly", as the saying goes.

The slower the adoption of these fancy new features, the more chances for content to remain accessible to those who simply don't want to feed the hedgemony and use other alternative browsers. As it is, the situation is bad enough with developers/designers itching to hide otherwise simple, static, and accessible content behind massive bloated web apps. I feel WebAsm is going to make that even worse, because now they can go even further with obfuscation.

When considering the state of the web as a whole, and one of its goals of wide access to information regardless of user-agent, if the presence of IE can slow the needless appification trend, IMHO that's a good thing.

There's some more detailed discussion on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15836027 and in particular my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15836315

kristiandupont• 9 years ago

Information is one use case for the web. Apps are another. We agree that if people make apps where a static HTML file would suffice, that's a bad thing. However, for writing apps I think webassembly is going to greatly improve things for developers and users.

I enjoy writing JS both for frontend and backend but the perspective of being able to write strictly in something like F# looks really appealing.

krapp4• 9 years ago

I take issue with the inference that all attempts at expanding the types of content on the web are needless and "hegemonic," particularly as you're defending the greatest hegemon the web has ever known in making it.

I would even argue that the ability to execute code on the web is more profound and revolutionary than the ability to only publish text. It's not unnecessary complexity, it's adding a new dimension to what the web will be capable of, and by extension, what users will be capable of.

. As it is, the situation is bad enough with developers/designers itching to hide otherwise simple, static, and accessible content behind massive bloated web apps.

That bloat isn't a problem with the web itself, or with features added to the web, it's a problem with developers and coding trends, and the need to provide polyfills and shims to support IE.

Vinnl• 9 years ago

because now they can go even further with obfuscation.

They'll be able to go just as far: too far for you to be able to make sense of it. WebAssembly or not, that ship has sailed.

send_computers2• 9 years ago

Looking at the usage relative to browser support, the UC browser for Android is a bigger concern, no doubt it will add support soon unlike IE.

See here and click 'usage relative': https://caniuse.com/#search=WebAssembly

pluma• 9 years ago

Unless your audience happens to be an exact mirror of the relative global browser stats, that is less than helpful.

If 90% of your users are on IE, it's not enlightening to point out that those 90% only make up a tiny fraction of the global browser users.

onion2k4• 9 years ago

Unless Microsoft ports Edge to Windows 7/8...

Support for Windows 8 ends in a month[1]. There's extended support for some users for a further 5 years, but if you're doing client work rather than writing bespoke software for a specific user then IE, and Windows versions less than 10, are effectively dead and gone.

It's perfectly reasonable to use web technologies that aren't supported by IE. Ideally you should have a bare HTML server-side alternative for those users, but that's true for everything that a user might not have (or have turned off, eg JS).

[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/13853/windows-lifec...

pmlnr• 9 years ago

Windows versions less than 10, are effectively dead and gone

That is not how this works.

frik2• 9 years ago

End of patch support of Windows 7 is 2020, of Windows 8 is 2023, of Windows 10 Mobile is 2020, of rest of Windows 10 is 2025. No one cares about your PR speak.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec...

nobleach• 9 years ago

Having worked for the federal government, let me assure you, Windows 7 will be around for a long time. But let me give a better example: Samsung mobile devices. Since Samsung was so clever in naming their default browser "The Internet", there are a metric ton of folks who will be using that browser on their Galaxy S5s for a few more years. I think many underestimate those two groups, the ones that won't upgrade due to simply misunderstanding the whole mechanism, and the ones that are locked in by government infrastructure.

Spivak2• 9 years ago

Windows versions less than 10, are effectively dead and gone.

Ha! Don't we all wish. Here's the marketshare numbers from this month [1].

- Windows 7: 43%

- Windows 10: 30%

- Windows XP: 6%

- Windows 8: 5%

And companies are going to be buying extended support for 7 no different than XP so you'll have to wait out that 5 years.

[1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share...

teilo• 9 years ago

There are certain industries where these numbers are highly skewed toward Windows 7. Healthcare, hospitals in particular, are especially bad.

zitterbewegung• 9 years ago

I swear “supports all browsers” always means “supports all modern browsers”. No one seems to realize what Enterpriss deployments means anymore. Windows 7 deployments just finished for a bunch of those users and there is a huge cost to move to windows 10 or even adding a modern browser to your deployment.

baxuz• 9 years ago

That won't fix the problem, since IE11 is still available in Windows 10, and IE11 is supported until 20-freaking-25.

That's 6 more years. Let that sink in for a bit.

Seriously thinking about switching careers at this point.

starik362• 9 years ago

Wow, I was about to dismiss your comment because one would have to be some sort of sadomasochist to actually seek out IE 11 on a Windows 10 machine and use it on purpose.

But according to Netmarketshare, fully 7% of Windows 10 users use IE.

https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?opt...

Insane.

dbbk4• 9 years ago

I think you are being a bit overly dramatic, IE 11 is not that bad.

borplk• 9 years ago

Does anyone know when/if DOM support will come to WASM?

Bob2018• 9 years ago

I am also curious about WebGL and/or canvas approach. This would allow bypassing the HTML and CSS mess not just JS mess.

Klathmon• 9 years ago

Unless you have a good reason, I urge you to never do that. Even ignoring accessibility (which is pretty much completely ruined in this situation no matter what), you'll need to reinvent every single primitive widget you need yourself and have it work the same as it does on all platforms.

That's a shitload of code shipped to the user before you even write a single byte of code for your application!

kayoone3• 9 years ago

If you write all the rendering yourself, you can just output to a canvas but that kind of defeats the purpose. Having a JS layer for WebGL that calls into WEBASM for calculations etc should work fine though.

dmitriid• 9 years ago

IIRC, after garbage collection, http://webassembly.org/docs/future-features/

Confiks• 9 years ago

Native DOM support might come later, but there's nothing stopping you from importing/exporting Javascript functions to WASM. Cheerp does this for example [1].

[1] https://www.leaningtech.com/cheerp/index.html

lj3• 9 years ago

https://github.com/WebAssembly/host-bindings/

inDigiNeous• 9 years ago

Any good example projects already using WebAssembly ? Some list with multiple examples would be nice.

pjmlp7• 9 years ago

There are already ongoing efforts to port JVM and CLR to WebAssembly.

Someone is porting TypeScript to WASM, named AssemblyScript.

It won't surprise me to see a WebAssembly backend for Flash.

whatever_dude3• 9 years ago

It won't surprise me to see a WebAssembly backend for Flash.

If Adobe was smart, they'd have started working on am asmjs (later WebAssembly) + webgl output for Flash a long time ago.

Alas they're not exactly forward-planning and let the platform die, and its tools fizzle. Today there's already better alternatives that do things more cleanly/natively (like Pixijs). If you use TypeScript with Pixijs, it's like having a much more advanced ActionScript, better development tools (your browser's devtools), and better performance. You lose a "stage" for free drawing, but that was more often than not a misused feature anyway (and one that has good alternatives in the DOM/JS world anyway).

send_computers2• 9 years ago

https://github.com/mbasso/awesome-wasm#projects

frik2• 9 years ago

We should sometimes pause, and think about the disadvantages a new technique will bring to the web.

I am completely fine with asm.js.

Though WebASM is a like a wet dream for big corp with mass of legacy code in C++. We will see Office running on WebASM and other closed binary blobs in near future. It's very contrary to the concept of the open web - do you want to live in AOL-land again, were everything is closed off? No? Anyway great you helped them. I fear WebASM has several downsides that will harm young startups a lot in near future - only unicorns and big corps will benefit, it will be a win-win, less competition, because of harder entry to market, and they can ship their decades old C++ blobs as a service. It's time to wake up, and stop WebASM or severe limit it's functionality. Where is Mozilla foundation? Or is the new Mozilla just another startup, backed 90% by Google money.

arithma• 9 years ago

The open web should be most concerned with users. If big corporate products is what they want on the web, then so be it!

kayoone3• 9 years ago

afaik you can not just take a C++ blob, compile to WebASM and be done. Your business logic can be there, but the User Interface would still need to be JS and HTML in the end, unless you want your app to just draw to a canvas, but even that would only work if you rewrote the rendering as webasm has no access to OS level libraries

ankitpati• 9 years ago

I am a C coder, and I cannot wait to have my code on the web, decimating inferior languages like JavaScript. If a startup relies on JavaScript to keep out competition from C coders, well, too bad. They will be decimated in terms of performance. The web will be ruled by the best performing apps written in the language of the Linux kernel.

AnIdiotOnTheNet• 9 years ago

All browsers? Including Lynx?

Oh, no, you meant all the official browsers of our corporate masters. Sooner or later they'll all be one.

therealmarv• 9 years ago

you should definitely switch to more modern browsers! Try Links2 ... it even supports frames! ;)

gilrain• 9 years ago

We welcome you to switch to Mozilla Firefox!

jokoon• 9 years ago

I tried to use emscripten as a tool chain, it was not the greatest experience.

I really hope better toolchains will appear.

Emscripten seems to be a collection of weird hacks.

Web Assembly now supported across all browsers

Related Stories