Thanks for the answers! On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 at 19:46, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Is the Pharo team aware of the http://webassembly.org/ effort? The >> Browser Preview tentative is for Q1, do you think it is a good opportunity >> to push Pharo to web development more easily? I know next to nothing of VM >> binary (lol), but I am curious on how one could provide an Smalltalk (in >> this particular Pharo) application in the web using webassembly, as the >> project is aimed to broaden the development choices to something different >> than Javascript or Transpilers (which I profoundly wishes to succeed since >> I hate js) . >> >> Thanks, >> VItor >> >> >> >> From the little I know it may be possible to port Cog VM to WebAssembly , > compiling the C sources through emacscripten. As always things are more > complex in practice than it may seem. > > WebAssembly would be more meaningful for front ends because you can run > whatever you want on back ends. > > web dev on front end is not doing very well with both mobile and desktop > platforms dominated by native apps. Pharo is already native , so unless you > really want it for websites to replace JavaScript , but we already have > PharoJS , squeakJs and amber for that, you don't need it. > > Personally I think for Pharo is more important to have official releases > for iOS and Android. JavaScript wise I think we are well covered. > > So no I don't think webassembly matters as much for JavaScript as it > matters for other languages. > > If you really care about performance just make an app and release it on > Mac, windows, Linux, android and iOS app stores. This the route most > popular web orientated apps go nowadays ,like Slack, Dropbox, Netflix etc. > > We actually do this side ways and embed a web browser to your app , which > I think will be far more flexible than a website with webassembly. > > I think for now we have to wait and see. >
