>>106777261
as ridiculous as it sounds, wasm -> c -> bin is a lot less painful to deal with. something like rlbox, https://rlbox.dev/
for the web, if you really are slamming that CPU with javascript, sure, it works.
other wasm runtimes outside of a browser? shit, don't bother..

>>106777261
>best for compiling down to wasm?
C, C++, Rust. duh? you'll have a less shit time with Rust since no_std is a stronger concept and more common in the crates ecosystem than dealing with emscripten crap.

>black box code that's essentially impossible to debug let alone decompile properly compared to js
>literally not a single usecase other than making it 1000x harder to reverse encryption schemes and such on various websites
convince me why the creator(s) of wasm shouldn't be lynched

>>106777499
nothing stops you from turning js into something like asm.js. claiming it's somehow "worse" when uglify.js and multitude of compilers out there exist already for js is delusional.

>>106777261
>is it a viable option
Depends on the reason why you wanna use it. Better for cpu intensive stuff in the browser than js but that's kinda it. Theoretically you can also with that use other langs than js in the browser but you get usually worse performance and have to fight with js bindings. Theoretically people are also trying it out to have a sandboxed environment to run server stuff that didn't get that much traction
>what languages are the best for compiling down to wasm?
Wasm has now a GC that you can optionally use so you have more choice than the usual suspects which compile to machine code

>>106777261
Somehow they didn't finish Interface Types / Component Model, so imo not too good

>>106778200
>Wasm has now a GC
don't languages have to actually... like implement their runtime on top of it? I doubt it's a simple lift and ship for every gc'd lang. looks like Java(?) supports it?

>>106778710
>Interface Types / Component Model
why is it taking so long though. I'm sick of JS webshit so much.

>>106777261
let's me build my C++ game for the browser just fine, so I have no complaints. other than that, I don't care much about it. I could do the same with asm.js over 10 years ago.

>>106778860
>don't languages have to actually... like implement their runtime on top of it?
Yes they still have to compile to wasm and ship their runtime if they wanna include it all (or parts of it). But that's more lightweight than having to ship the whole interpeter with the actual program you wanna use