On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 3:36:11 PM UTC-7, Kenton Varda wrote: > > I don't think WASM is likely to be a good fit here, for two reasons: > > 1) libcapnp and libkj together add up to some 730k of code (text segment) > these days. Unless emscripten builds are significantly smaller, that's > probably too big. (If you stick to lite mode, it's still 401k, which is > still probably too big.) >
For some use cases it might not matter. > > 2) The interface between JS and WASM would probably be very slow if every > accessor has to go through it. You'd probably end up wanting to translate > the whole capnp to a JSON object upfront, which of course defeats a lot of > the purpose. > I'm hoping shared memory <https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=javascript+shared+memory> might be used, we could have serdes in wasm and access in JS, take with huge grain of salt :) > > So I definitely think a pure-JS implementation is still desirable. > Yea, definitely wouldn't hurt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cap'n Proto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/capnproto.
