Wasm and the LC Roadmap

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:

 > Anyone know the wasm plans?
 >
 > I’m Woking on a project in collaboration with a number of other
 > platforms and partners that are using wasm. Would like to play
 > in the same place with LiveCode.

Given the vast gulf between the browser DOM and LC's object model, and 
the limited role of WASM for GUIs as Andre reminded us, WASM output 
alone is likely an improvement but not likely a game-changer.

It may be useful to evaluate how your app performs and behaves under the 
current HTML output, and then imagine that with a bit shorter download 
and a bit better performance. I'd be surprised if it cuts either 
download or overall execution speed by as much as half.

How well does your app work when exported using the current LC HTML option?



Could there be a place in your plans for streaming apps, a net-savvy 
standalone that gives you nearly all the same benefits of web deployment 
outside the confines of a browser window?

True, it does mean a one-time install, but a web deployment means 
downloading the engine again and again every time you go to the page 
using it; easier but far more tediously impactful over the lifecycle of 
the user's relationship with your app.

Distributing LC-native stack files lets us deliver a dedicated user 
experience (e.g. relevant menus and no fear of the Back button), with 
ultra-rapid development cycles using the LiveCode we know and love 
today, with all the performance we enjoy in any LiveCode standalone.



Porting directly from desktop to browser is not an easy task. I can 
remember when the Apple Developer List exploded with rage demanding 
Apple add a feature to XCode to provide a one-click way to port iOS and 
macOS apps to the Web, and how everyone stopped using Swift and 
Objective C when Apple didn't deliver. ;)

-- 
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems