Build Your First Thing with WebAssembly (opens in new tab)

This, I think is just a library or archive (in the ar/ranlib sense; https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/binutils/ar.html#ar) of code that the browser loads over the Internet.

Java hit a jackpot calling such a thing a jar, a word that is both shorthand for "Java archive" and a noun describing a container. That suggests looking at words such as 'bottle', 'box', 'cask', 'pot' (nice word, but its connotations do not make it a winner), 'cup', 'amphora', 'pithos' (not well-known enough, and typically unmovable), 'crate' (taken by rust), or 'vase' but I can't find a nice alternative interpretation as an abbreviation ('Jug' has a 'j' that could mean JavaScript, but I think we would be looking for something with a W for 'web' or I for 'internet') or even something that sounds good ('crate' is growing on me, but already taken by rust. That shows that other terms might grow to become acceptable, too. Maybe 'jug' could be such a word?)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_file

Of course the term "object" is confusingly overloaded too...

Also, there's a reason the description is a bit fuzzy on the WebAssembly landing page. It's not just a binary format (in fact, we didn't have a binary format for a while after we started). I like to think that it's a specification of execution semantics that can be expressed in many different formats (text, binary, AST, etc.). Not sure that's the easiest way to explain it though.

Great writeup. I am a big proponent of the idea of webassembly as I believe many are. The browser is one of the greatest apps, and it is easy to look past many of its flaws because it provides a universal environment to develop for. I have always been a harsh critic of the balkanization apps provide when they are unneccessarily trying to extend functionality already provided by the browser and live natively on my device providing virtually nothing but more access to "my" resources.

That said, while I don't love writing apps in an old IBM GML and pulling in heaps of scripts to get the functionality I need, it is easy and well understood (which is why it has proliferated). If we are to change this, I think an entirely new paradigm would be easier to use and embrace than something like wasm because the browser has a lot of access to resources and this has a fairly narrow use-case relative to it's complexity.

I could be wrong, as this technology is super nascent and people as intelligent and synonomous with the web like BRendan Eich are openly supporting it, I just don't see it being embraced at the sort of tipping point neccessary to proliferate.

It will be very hard to build a community of people doing things like you have here: providing great resources and tutorials and a community of code base to build on. A new standard or tech must be 10x better than the current one and I do not feel this is.

edit: the first major demonstration was Unity's angry bots according to Wikipedia. So it appears this is for game devs, and game developers who want to build for the browser will be excited about this. I just think webassembly to be really far down on the ist of improvements we should make to the browser.

There is an experimental backend of LLVM that you can try, but it will require building LLVM from source currently. Emscripten has an option to do this automatically, I believe.

You can also write the AST format by hand, which IMO is much easier to do than writing asm.js by hand, just more verbose. I wouldn't advise anyone do this, as the format has been changing over time.

Finally, there is work on specifying a true "text format" that is meant to be used with view-source and directly maps to the binary format. You can see some proposals if you look at the pull requests in the design repo. When a proposal is accepted and we implement the tooling, you will be able to generate a binary directly from this format, which will be much nicer.