> Average webdev tomorrow writes Python for a reasonably fast Python interpreter implemented in the browser with WASM
Python is just as hand-wavy as Javascript, so I fail to see the win here. At least C/C++/Rust/Go give you some neat guarantees, but you lose all the velocity JS gives you. I mean, pyscript doesn't even support hot reloading out of the box, but yeah, I'm sure it's definitely the future. Besides, you could probably just write the interpreter in vanilla JS and it would be comparably fast (at least in Chrome), so WASM is completely superfluous.
> At least C/C++/Rust/Go give you some neat guarantees
Wow, imagine if you could compile these to WASM.
> Besides, you could probably just write the interpreter in vanilla JS and it would be comparably fast (at least in Chrome), so WASM is completely superfluous.
This one is going in the orange site bookmarks, lol.
> This one is going in the orange site bookmarks, lol.
I mean, benchmarks say the performance gains are from 0.2%-60% comparing vanilla JS to WASM given various browsers (keep in mind it's not even twice as fast even in synthetic benchmarks). So I guess you're right: if I built my next todo web app, I'd definitely want to change my entire workflow, write a custom purpose-built runtime, and transpile from Python to WASM to eek out that sweet sweet performance in Google Chrome.
Python is just as hand-wavy as Javascript, so I fail to see the win here. At least C/C++/Rust/Go give you some neat guarantees, but you lose all the velocity JS gives you. I mean, pyscript doesn't even support hot reloading out of the box, but yeah, I'm sure it's definitely the future. Besides, you could probably just write the interpreter in vanilla JS and it would be comparably fast (at least in Chrome), so WASM is completely superfluous.