Dusty Pomerleau on Nostr: I’m truly mystified, even years later, by the decision to bail on #wasm interface ...
I’m truly mystified, even years later, by the decision to bail on #wasm interface types. The README has been edited a few times, and the reasons always seem to allude to #webComponents, but I'm unable to see how web components impact our desire for wasm to have first-class access to the DOM. It's as if the proposal is saying “We no longer think it's important for wasm to be able to do this, because we remembered you can do that with JS.” What am I missing?
https://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-typesPublished at
2023-11-18 04:24:44Event JSON
{
"id": "b0c11e808490955f3123540c326905062ce64796dfdf317998714c2333b7c5c1",
"pubkey": "5bdfe5c3188a24f76efd37648930d8ada3e458961d03b2e0d62596d4f76e4778",
"created_at": 1700281484,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"wasm"
],
[
"t",
"webcomponents"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://fosstodon.org/users/dpom/statuses/111429647364128840",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "I’m truly mystified, even years later, by the decision to bail on #wasm interface types. The README has been edited a few times, and the reasons always seem to allude to #webComponents, but I'm unable to see how web components impact our desire for wasm to have first-class access to the DOM. It's as if the proposal is saying “We no longer think it's important for wasm to be able to do this, because we remembered you can do that with JS.” What am I missing?\n\nhttps://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-types",
"sig": "f5b9668318475e9209a38bcdc845df724f392a9fcbbe0979ee2f19a198a05375b0a79700b0976f133f41f298f1f8ece50b78aca2918e108e1218fce299cbacbf"
}
