> - Verbose. I've seen a just few lines of JS get replaced with hundreds and thousands of Rust.
Please, more detail (=
Please, more detail (=
The verbosity and complexity of `wasm_bindgen`/serialization between JS and Wasm (written in Rust) is primarily the thing I am frustrated at here when I see hundreds and thousands of Rust code. A concrete example: creating a Websocket client in Javascript/Typescript vs in Rust/Wasm.
In general though (outside of Wasm), Rust is less readable.
And with regards to Rust errors, I've found Rust errors related to Tonic and Diesel to be quite annoying/unreadable. The Diesel docs seem to blame Rust for this (can't find the docs for it right now).
eg Browsers provide JS functions that are intended for JS, which are not directly exposed to Wasm. So when your Wasm wants to access DOM things, access DOM functions, (etc) it needs to go through a JS shim layer instead of being able to call them directly.
If the browser dev's (or some W3C type of body?) introduced those same functions, but had them be directly accessible from wasm, then the JS shims wouldn't be needed.
The JS dev's for each of the browsers though would probably try and stop it ("security risk!" excuses, etc) though, as that would potentially cut into "their territory" and allow other languages to compete. :(
Btw, my impression that it would be blocked by JS people involved in the process, was from a conversation some time ago with one of the JS people themselves.
They said (from their point of view) there's no need for WASM to directly access things instead of going through JS, and they'd block it themselves if things went that direction. Security was the lever they mentioned they'd probably be able to use.
new HTMLDivElement()
struct WebBrowser {
...