[miki_oomiri]

> The whole "it's not meant to replace JS" thing was just to reduce pushback from JS devs.

It was born at the same time as webgl, at the time of Jit optimisation for js engines. As a subset of js first, then as wasm as we know it. It was originally for games and performance on the web.

At no point there was a conversation about "replacing js", but more like, "js can't do these stuff. let's have something else".

[IshKebab]

> At no point there was a conversation about "replacing js"

There absolutely was. This famous talk was made even when it was still Asm.js:

https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...

[miki_oomiri]

Not gonna argue with "who said what".

All I can tell you with certainty is that the people who designed and funded webgl/asmjs/llvm efforts at Mozilla (Alon, Vlad, Brendan, …) clearly understood that wasm was a needed companion alongside JS (and its DOM&co bindings). Not a replacement. I was part of these conversations.

I understand why people would think it was a JS killer, but that's a naive way of looking at it.

[Dylan16807]

That talk is intentionally silly and at the end is talking about replacing all binaries, not javascript in particular, and yes that does strongly change the meaning.