D could catch this wave: web assembly

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 06/18/2015 01:41 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 11:00:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> they will never stop, won't they? "modern web: building piles of shit
>> on top of piles of shit". (sigh)
>
> Indeed.
>
> «Even before browsers ship native support for WebAssembly, developers
> can ship applications on the Web using a polyfill which converts
> WebAssembly to JavaScript. »
>

Great, so it'll have the same fundamental problem as asm.js: Claims to 
be backwards compatible, but really isn't because the backwards fallback 
method is likely to be prohibitively slow and will especially fuck 
mobile browsers that use the fallback.

> Basically binary asm.js... What are they thinking?
>

Maybe this suggestion demonstrates ignorance, but I'm thinking "They 
should just use LLVM IR. It already exists." Maybe toss in some LLVM IR 
extensions as needed, and boom, done.

But the web world has always been so very NIH-syndrome, though.

> And whyyyyyyy are they calling a binary format "assembly"?
>

Probably because .NET/Mono have already established the name "assembly" 
for that sort of thing. That'd be my guess. They could call it an 
"object file" but that would intuitively suggest something more along 
the lines of ELF/COFF/whatever, which I assume isn't quite what they 
have in mind.