It's intellectually dishonest to imply de-adoption of flash was just "politics". Flash had all sorts of problems, we should be happy we managed to get rid of it. Back in the day I was too cynical to think one day we can do so.
Html5 and modern javascript already replaces flash as a target. I don't know if the tools are the same. Webasm isn't necessary for that, its use is accelerating cpu intensive parts of a web page.
I don't know what point you are making here. These projects could have been done by compiling to asm.js - webasm isn't what makes them technically possible, it just makes them faster, smaller and parsed faster. You have been told all of this before.
Above you linked projects that you said happened specifically because of webasm. Here you are saying it is nothing new 'since 1961' (what does that mean exactly)?
How have you made CPU workloads run at native speeds across all major browsers before we webasm?
Many people have corrected you on your extreme and bizarre vendetta against webasm. You are the only one saying it is both nothing new and somehow enables new projects that you don't like.
As shown at the start of the thread, with Flash Alchemy, already in 2011.
Those people are the ones with an agenda to spread WebAssembly as above anything else in regards to safety, and the very first attempt to have a bytecode format for C and C++ code, when IBM and Unisys mainframes, CLR, Brew, Tendra, PNaCL, Alchemy have been there first.
My agenda, is only to prove a point that, it isn't that much safer than PNaCL, and the only thing we got from its adoption is a 10 year delay having a general purpose VM in the browser.
Ironically, Chrome is anyway who calls the shots in WebAssembly, as per browser market share.
You think all the people in this thread talking about quake 3 and doom 3 running smoothly are part of an agenda against ancient bytecode formats for IBM mainframes?
