Here is a direct quote from the article: "WebAssembly, on the other hand, is strongly typed. It can be turned into machine code straight away."
Decide for yourself, whether this article is worth your time.
Decide for yourself, whether this article is worth your time.
Did you even read the article? It goes into a deep dive on AssemblyScript and WASM including discussions on Rust’s std::vec and Go’s slices, bump allocators, TurboFan/Sparkplug/Ignition/Liftoff benchmarks, and -O3 versus -O3s flags and contains links to a pull request to try to help with one of the noticed performance issues.
This is a well-written dive into the technology, writing it off because you don't like the definition of "strongly typed" in this sentence is a bit premature.
And indeed, this article does seem to be worth my time.
I wasn’t confused by that statement when reading the article. Obviously wasm isn’t strongly typed but obviously that’s not literally what the author meant.
The article was interesting and they clearly spent a substantial amount of time creating it.
Is this maybe something with academic definition of strongly typed?
Because the way I understand Webassembly, it surely is strongly typed.
edit:
"Strongly typed is a concept used to refer to a programming language that enforces strict restrictions on intermixing of values with differing data types."
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/24434/strongly-typed
Seems to back me up.
either you don't understand type systems, or you don't understand WebAssembly. in either case, I can encourage reading the article, because it sheds some light on both topics!