HTML5 deployment: progress comes into sight

[Mark Waddingham]

It has substantial and wide ranging implications - all to the good.

At the very least 'WASM' is more compact than asm.js and eliminates the compiling overhead which you have when you load a text based representation of the language.

We've got a fair bit of housekeeping to do (particularly in our build system) to be able to start leveraging it, but it is a case of when and not if.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Jun 2017, at 07:53, Dan Brown via use-livecode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> A bit OT but there's an interesting discussion here
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14458648 on the merits of WebAssembly
> vs JavaScript for in browser applications. As WebAssembly matures it will
> be interesting to see what implications (if any) it has for livecode html5
> i.e. will it ultimately become a better fit
> 
> 
> On 2 Jun 2017 3:08 am, "Andre Garzia via use-livecode" <
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
>> What I believe BR was referring to is that we can expose LC handlers to the
>> local JS context of a browser widget thus enabling liveCode.* calls. What
>> would be good, was to have functions (synchronous ones for the sake of
>> complexity) exposed as well so that calling a liveCode.* function from JS
>> on a browser widget not only would trigger the function but also return the
>> results.
>> 
>> Right now, we need to play musical chairs where JS calls a liveCode.*
>> handler, which doesn't return anything but executes, then the said handler
>> execute something in the JS context which is essentially a callback thus
>> forcing every call into an async call. I know pretty well how async JS
>> world is but even if we could simply have synchronous functional calls
>> there it would be awesome and open a whole new world to customized
>> experiences.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06/01/2017 04:59 PM, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why not check for CopySpecial() if the object is a widget before passing
>>>> to the owner? It makes more sense that the library handler a widget
>> exports
>>>> is part of the message path. That way we can dispatch to the instance
>> and
>>>> the instance can overload/override it if they want necessary.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1. I like the way you think.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mark Wieder
>>> ahsoftware at gmail.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> http://www.andregarzia.com -- All We Do Is Code.
>> http://fon.nu -- minimalist url shortening service.
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode