Absolutely it is a good new ! I have a concern about this readable code : as you know , finally these scripts had to be put on the site and they will run at browsers at client-site. Is it possible to make them completely un-readable so that they can be protected from reverse engineering ?
Regards ! Xiaoming Ding 在 2015年6月18日星期四 UTC+8上午2:12:07，Alon Zakai写道： > > I think it is a valid concern to worry about code on the web remaining > human-readable, and in fact we are being very careful about that, see this > FAQ entry: > > > https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/FAQ.md#will-webassembly-support-view-source-on-the-web > > WebAssembly will allow View Source, just like JS currently does. It will > actually provide some benefits over the current situation: > > 1. Minified JS is currently almost impossible to read. Some browsers clean > up whitespace for you, which helps a lot, but it isn't standardized. The > WebAssembly text format will be standardized, and means all browsers will > show a readable and consistent view source on wasm content. > > 2. asm.js is currently hard to read due to all the extra | 0 and + > coercions, etc. The WebAssembly text format will be much cleaner, and much > more readable. > > Note also that WebAssembly is an AST format. It has a binary version, but > still encodes an AST, just like asm.js. So a human-friendly AST is being > kept. > > Overall, WebAssembly is like asm.js, only better. It will not make things > worse on human readability etc., it will only improve things there. > > - Alon > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Morgaine Fowle <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> This sounds like the death of human runnable code on the web, and the end >> of machine-to-machine interoperability that JS-as-target has given us. >> Building a bunch of dev tools for a bytecode language is a shocking >> prospect. This is a major major change, and I worry that the relative >> thin-ness, the human-ness of the web is a thing that's made it great, >> that's made it a preferred platform, and that this puts a very serious kink >> in that. >> >> Emscripten has been great because it's targeted JS, and enriched it. But >> with languages just focusing on a VM underneath, I worry the tech will >> recede into various factional camps, with no interest in aiding the greater >> web. I'm happy we have good new tech under development, this sounds like an >> interesting effort, but it also opens very scary ends where the web becomes >> as banal as every other native platform, as isolated and by itself, with as >> little interest in enriching the greater whole as we see with everything >> else not-Web, or without major embedding points (which I'd classify as >> enriching, but in a single-serving capacity). Today's a major win for >> machine to machine, but I worry that we're closing the door on people. >> >> Fair us all well. Expecting a report on devtools situations in this brave >> brave new world soon, regards, yours, >> rektide >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "emscripten-discuss" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
