WASM: Big deal or little deal?
I&#x27;m rooting for WASM to win.<p>One of the things that discouraged me from Front-end Web Development is JavaScript weirdness. It just has too many pitfalls and it&#x27;s very hard to debug for a newcomer unless you study a proper JS course that tells you precisely all of these traps before you get burned. I&#x27;ve never found a programming language that didn&#x27;t behave like I expected it on first touch, except for JS.<p>I am fully aware TypeScript exists, and there are transpilers where the syntax (modern ECMAScript) and rules are more appropriate to current times, but these aren&#x27;t &quot;native&quot; of the browser. You must still transpile to the hazardous old JS. I know transpilers avoid many of these pitfalls, <i>but I cannot avoid feeling like I&#x27;m building a skyscraper in quicksand.</i><p>The hard thing about talking about this exact topic it&#x27;s that I&#x27;m sure my comment will trigger negatively a ton of developers, because talking about JS like this it&#x27;s going to feel like I&#x27;ve insulted a cult. Let me be clear this is not my intention. I come from the static-typed programming languages world, so I have a preference for my programming to be the most correct.<p>WASM to me provides this solid foundation, if only (big IF) we manage to create a browser where the main execution virtual machine is not a JS one. I&#x27;ve dreamed of a browser that supports multiple stacks, instead of the HTML&#x2F;CSS&#x2F;JS monopoly. For instance, why&#x27;d be too hard to think about something like HTML&#x2F;CSS&#x2F;Python?[0]<p>JS has been a discourager to me career-wise, and I&#x27;m doing great in Back-end Web Dev, but I&#x27;m pretty sure I&#x27;m not the only one feeling this way about it. The web should be more accessible in this sense.<p>--<p>[0]: I am aware of the existence of Brython: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brython.info&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brython.info&#x2F;</a>, but it&#x27;s not my point, that is still Python-over-JS.