It'd be nice to see memory use. Ideally base usage, then cost of running 1 of a thing, then cost of running 50 if a thing.
Personally low my 50% speed vs native does not sound like the worst to me. I've spent years using perl, java (in v4-v7 days), node... These have various ways they are less good than native, and we collectively seem to accept that. Ideally yes wasm gets faster but a 2x is pretty ok!
WebAssembly right now simply is not. Will it ever become a sound success story? There is so little impact it has made so far after almost 10 years. We still don't have all applications running super-fast on the web. This is a failure.
I agree. It is mostly a solution looking for a problem and has close to the same functional downsides as Flash or Applets other than "transparency".
Its 'sandbox' is also escapeable at both the engine level in V8, Gecko and JavaScriptCore (All in C/C++) and at the implementation level; especially if the software was converted from C to WASM.
So it is not the silver bullet people think it is.
Personally low my 50% speed vs native does not sound like the worst to me. I've spent years using perl, java (in v4-v7 days), node... These have various ways they are less good than native, and we collectively seem to accept that. Ideally yes wasm gets faster but a 2x is pretty ok!
WebAssembly right now simply is not. Will it ever become a sound success story? There is so little impact it has made so far after almost 10 years. We still don't have all applications running super-fast on the web. This is a failure.
Its 'sandbox' is also escapeable at both the engine level in V8, Gecko and JavaScriptCore (All in C/C++) and at the implementation level; especially if the software was converted from C to WASM.
So it is not the silver bullet people think it is.
[0] https://www.ox.security/blog/the-aftermath-of-cve-2025-4609-...
[1] https://issues.chromium.org/issues/334120897
[1] https://trustsig.eu/blog/wasm2c-tableflip-unchecked-calloc/