Wasm seems like a good step towards a better web, and still is something really niche AFAIK.
I hope that it becomes standard, because is way more secure, and of course more performant than JS.
I do even think that the HTML+CSS+JS triad (and its single components, too) are a historical bad design decision, a HUGE one, and should’ve superseded.
What makes WASM more secure than JavaScript? I’d think that the main issue with JS is that it’s a programming language that’s running on the client-side, not that it’s specifically JS.
The fact that WASM is NOT a programmimg language, and that WASM is intrinsically sandboxed and has really granular permissions (through WASI).
Also, how do you expect that, for example, a videoconference site (let’s say, Jitsi Meet) will work if you don’t execute any client-side code? And I’m not saying that all client-side code is permisible, justified or good, but rather that not all the client-side code is unpermisible, unjustified or bad, as you seem to imply.
And if you do use FLOSS, that’s really paranoid, even if FLOSS isn’t perfect.
Also, how do you expect that, for example, a videoconference site (let’s say, Jitsi Meet) will work if you don’t execute any client-side code?
I never said that you should never run client-side code. Even OP doesn’t say that (which is why they’re running some sites in Whonix, they just really don’t like it), and they’re way more extreme about not allowing JS than I am.
The fact that WASM is NOT a programmimg language, and that WASM is intrinsically sandboxed and has really granular permissions (through WASI).
Interesting. Are the actual implementations of it sufficiently secure so far?
I never said that you should never run client-side code. Even OP doesn’t say that (which is why they’re running some sites in Whonix, they just really don’t like it), and they’re way more extreme about not allowing JS than I am.
I have to admit that I may have exaggerated a bit, but I think the point is still clear.
Interesting. Are the actual implementations of it sufficiently secure so far?
Yeah, at this point it’s quite mature, and especially the implementations in languages like Rust, Zig, or Nim are particularly secure, although the classic ones in C or C++ are too, and there are great implementations for JS, TS, and other subsets of ECMAScript.
Wasm seems like a good step towards a better web, and still is something really niche AFAIK.
I hope that it becomes standard, because is way more secure, and of course more performant than JS.
I do even think that the HTML+CSS+JS triad (and its single components, too) are a historical bad design decision, a HUGE one, and should’ve superseded.
What makes WASM more secure than JavaScript? I’d think that the main issue with JS is that it’s a programming language that’s running on the client-side, not that it’s specifically JS.
The fact that WASM is NOT a programmimg language, and that WASM is intrinsically sandboxed and has really granular permissions (through WASI).
Also, how do you expect that, for example, a videoconference site (let’s say, Jitsi Meet) will work if you don’t execute any client-side code? And I’m not saying that all client-side code is permisible, justified or good, but rather that not all the client-side code is unpermisible, unjustified or bad, as you seem to imply.
And if you do use FLOSS, that’s really paranoid, even if FLOSS isn’t perfect.
I never said that you should never run client-side code. Even OP doesn’t say that (which is why they’re running some sites in Whonix, they just really don’t like it), and they’re way more extreme about not allowing JS than I am.
Interesting. Are the actual implementations of it sufficiently secure so far?
I have to admit that I may have exaggerated a bit, but I think the point is still clear.
Yeah, at this point it’s quite mature, and especially the implementations in languages like Rust, Zig, or Nim are particularly secure, although the classic ones in C or C++ are too, and there are great implementations for JS, TS, and other subsets of ECMAScript.