157 ms·

It's pretty objectively a big deal. (Feature-limited) Photoshop was ported to WASM in 2021. https://web.dev/ps-on-the-web/ https://web.dev/ps-on-the-web/ Wit

It's pretty objectively a big deal. (Feature-limited) Photoshop was ported to WASM in 2021. https://web.dev/ps-on-the-web/ https://web.dev/ps-on-the-web/ With the deprecation and imminent removal of WebSQL, the official (Google) recommendation for SQL-in-browser is WASM SQLite. https://sqlite.org/wasm/doc/trunk/index.md https://sqlite.org/wasm/doc/trunk/index.md

Kiuhrly1 3y ago
For the web and other use cases where it is embedded in another program (e.g. sandboxed plugins, other places where Lua or similar would've gone previously), I think yes. But I really don't see something like WASI or WASM servers sticking around, especially because it still has a noticeable performance penalty compared to native (can't source this right now, need to sleep)
zdragnar 3y ago
Say what? WebSQL was an experiment that ended up being replaced by indexeddb- it has been deprecated ever since, and was never part of the web standards.
- CottonMcKnight 3y ago
  It has been deprecated for a long time but still available in Chromium. It is being removed in Chromium 119 at the end of next month. See the aside about SQLite WASM on this blog post. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/
- afavour 3y ago
  It’s telling that despite IndexedDB being around forever people would still rather download an entire SQLite runtime than use it. A deeply unsatisfying API.
  - smashed 3y ago
    If I remember correctly, the main argument against web sql was that it really was just SQLite disguised as a web standard. I.e. there was a single implementation which defined the spec: SQLite. Every browser implementation relied on it. In retrospect, with the chrome monoculture we have today, this seems like a silly argument but at the time it was a legitimate concern.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
We didn’t need wasm to compile to the web for decades prior. Having a target closer to machine code is good, but not revolutionary. Same for Photoshop on the web tbh. Who is even using this?
- afavour 3y ago
  You’re asking who is using Photoshop on the web? A lot of people. Like there’s a ton of people using Office 365 in a browser rather than the native app. HN loves to shit on webapps and honestly with very good reason but the reality is that for a lot of people a cloud-based app they can use on absolutely any computer (or, often, phone/tablet) they can get their hands on is a huge boon.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    Absolutely any computer/phone/tablet has the concept of applications. Web apps remove initial friction of installation, and for big apps not even that much because you still need to download it and run it. But they also pay up this gain, with huge interest, for every single second you use the app. This is not benefitting the users. The bottom line is dire. However removing initial friction is all about getting your foot in the door. It's like selling a printer under cost and then you get them with the ink. Get them the first drug dose free, and then you get them when they're dependent. Offer a cheap design, and then you destroy them with the manufacturing. A story as old as the world, of which this "web megaapp" model is a tiny microcosm of. The web is an excellent platform for small to medium apps. Photoshop is gigantic. And Figma and the other rest of its ilk are absolutely insufferable and I'm saying this as a webdev. I would be significantly happier if these products did NOT exist. Heck if we took out WASM and these kind of products went away I'd consider it a net positive.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Android instant apps do exactly the same nowadays.
- mfer 3y ago
lmm 3y ago
How is any of that a "big deal" though? We've been compiling arbitrary code to Javascript for years now. I'm all for WASM but it seems more on the level of a new processor generation or faster RAM than something revolutionary. I'm sure it took a lot of hard work by smart people, but for most of us it's an implementation detail.
- blovescoffee 3y ago
  You should read about the creation of Figma. Some applications require a certain level of performance or they just don’t have much value prop. WASM made figma possible
  - lmm 3y ago
    Figma existed before WASM was enabled in browsers so clearly that's not true. They claim WASM improved their load times by 3x, which is a lot, but enough to make the difference between viable and not? I doubt it.
pjmlp 3y ago
And several others have been ported to C++/CLI on .NET, Flash/Code Alchemy, PNaCL before it, nothing new.

Kiuhrly1 3y ago

For the web and other use cases where it is embedded in another program (e.g. sandboxed plugins, other places where Lua or similar would've gone previously), I think yes. But I really don't see something like WASI or WASM servers sticking around, especially because it still has a noticeable performance penalty compared to native (can't source this right now, need to sleep)

zdragnar 3y ago

Say what? WebSQL was an experiment that ended up being replaced by indexeddb- it has been deprecated ever since, and was never part of the web standards.

CottonMcKnight 3y ago
It has been deprecated for a long time but still available in Chromium. It is being removed in Chromium 119 at the end of next month. See the aside about SQLite WASM on this blog post. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/
afavour 3y ago
It’s telling that despite IndexedDB being around forever people would still rather download an entire SQLite runtime than use it. A deeply unsatisfying API.
- smashed 3y ago
  If I remember correctly, the main argument against web sql was that it really was just SQLite disguised as a web standard. I.e. there was a single implementation which defined the spec: SQLite. Every browser implementation relied on it. In retrospect, with the chrome monoculture we have today, this seems like a silly argument but at the time it was a legitimate concern.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago

We didn’t need wasm to compile to the web for decades prior. Having a target closer to machine code is good, but not revolutionary. Same for Photoshop on the web tbh. Who is even using this?

afavour 3y ago
You’re asking who is using Photoshop on the web? A lot of people. Like there’s a ton of people using Office 365 in a browser rather than the native app. HN loves to shit on webapps and honestly with very good reason but the reality is that for a lot of people a cloud-based app they can use on absolutely any computer (or, often, phone/tablet) they can get their hands on is a huge boon.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  Absolutely any computer/phone/tablet has the concept of applications. Web apps remove initial friction of installation, and for big apps not even that much because you still need to download it and run it. But they also pay up this gain, with huge interest, for every single second you use the app. This is not benefitting the users. The bottom line is dire. However removing initial friction is all about getting your foot in the door. It's like selling a printer under cost and then you get them with the ink. Get them the first drug dose free, and then you get them when they're dependent. Offer a cheap design, and then you destroy them with the manufacturing. A story as old as the world, of which this "web megaapp" model is a tiny microcosm of. The web is an excellent platform for small to medium apps. Photoshop is gigantic. And Figma and the other rest of its ilk are absolutely insufferable and I'm saying this as a webdev. I would be significantly happier if these products did NOT exist. Heck if we took out WASM and these kind of products went away I'd consider it a net positive.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Android instant apps do exactly the same nowadays.
mfer 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

How is any of that a "big deal" though? We've been compiling arbitrary code to Javascript for years now. I'm all for WASM but it seems more on the level of a new processor generation or faster RAM than something revolutionary. I'm sure it took a lot of hard work by smart people, but for most of us it's an implementation detail.

blovescoffee 3y ago
You should read about the creation of Figma. Some applications require a certain level of performance or they just don’t have much value prop. WASM made figma possible
- lmm 3y ago
  Figma existed before WASM was enabled in browsers so clearly that's not true. They claim WASM improved their load times by 3x, which is a lot, but enough to make the difference between viable and not? I doubt it.

pjmlp 3y ago

And several others have been ported to C++/CLI on .NET, Flash/Code Alchemy, PNaCL before it, nothing new.