Skip to main content

The Big Bet on Web Performance: What to Do Until WebASM Takes Over?

What do WebASM, Reason, Dart, Rust, and Go all have in common? They're all trying to make the web faster. However, they do it in different ways.

WebASM's approach is obvious. Take high performance code written in C and C++. Find a way to run it safely in the browser.

Dart's initial approach was different. In the short term, Dart was meant to be compiled to JavaScript that would be faster than the JavaScript that you could write by hand. To a small degree, it succeeded. In the long term, the goal was to integrate the Dart VM into browsers. Unfortunately, this vision failed, and they gave up.

Reason's approach is a combination of the above two approaches. In the short term, it can be compiled to JavaScript. In the long term, the hope is to use the OCaml-based version of Reason, and run it in the browser using WebASM. This is pretty forward thinking--which you might expect from Jordan Walke, the author of Reason.

Go is a language aimed at replacing server-side C++. However, they're working on compiling to WebASM as well.

Rust is a language aimed at replacing C++ as well, but it was originally written specifically for reimplementing Firefox in order to make the browser faster. It too can be compiled to WebASM.

If we think back on the history of the web--things like React, Chrome, etc.--one thing's certain: performance is a key differentiator. It's particularly interesting to think of approaches, such as Dart's initial approach or Reason's current approach, which allow your code to run on a JavaScript VM today, but on WebASM in the future. This is an interesting approach to future-proofing the performance of your application.

Thanks to Alex Russell, Lars Bak and Kasper Lund, Lin Clark, and Jordan Walke for inspiring me to think in this way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within Tunes.org , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and jabber.org. Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p