In my opinion, this is the way forward. You cannot convince anyone that does frontend stuff to even try, or EVEN switch to this. We have to prove that this is a viable option, WASM is a viable way, WASM is actually more efficient etc. there are benchmarks and targeted studies... it just seems that browser vendors and devs haven't catched up yet
You would never want to understand why this is better?
Here is a couple of reasons:
1. It is backed up by a statically typed, safe, elegant language that is like a strict teacher that tells you to fuck off when you make a mistake...
2. HMR is possible with this...
3. Look, WASM is not fighting against you, it is fighting for you... anyone who is targeting JS and is forced to do so is welcome to choose any other language you want...
Why not? WASM is gaining features after it's MVP, such as GC support, direct targeting with DOM APIs (with reference types and interface types), it's not a fast process, but it's coming. It doesn't take anything away from any programming language, but it provides a more efficient platform for those languages to run... what is there not to like?
This is not a fever dream in my opinion, just replace Rust with your favorite language if that language targets WASM. Eventually, JS will be just another choice in a field of languages that would target WASM... then it is just a matter of preference.
They are pretty much identical. Seed has better docs, Yew has a promise for multi-threaded stuff, but its not very well documented (or even working). I've tried projects with both and the nice thing with Yew is that the syntax for HTML is kinda compatible with the actual thing (think JSX.) Seed however is macros only. Both seem to compile in the same time, but I would bet there would be differences on bigger projects (which there are none atm?)
The basic flaw in the Unix philosophy is that the rules 1. and 2. are incorrect. The rules should be as follows:
1. Write libraries that do one thing and do it well.
2. Write libraries to work together.
The third rule is correct, because that is what programs essentially are: black boxes to modify input streams to output streams. I think this correction should be followed in the future.
Then your assumption would be wrong. I consider myself to be more artistic in writing my code. But thats besides the point I was trying to make.
While I enjoy the feeling of creation and I like doing fancy stuff on my computer, I still recognize that all code boils down to those three things I listed. No matter how artsy you get about it. I argue that creativity and expressiveness would be enhanced by having a common language that we could all understand and share our own skills through it. I like to think that if we had this utopistic language, the teaching of programming would become easier and it would be started earlier for students. Also the quality of the teaching would improve significantly.
Language is but a tool to transfer ideas out of your head to others, the better you are at one the easier it becomes. QuickSort works like it does because thats the algorithm. A linked list is like that because thats the data structure. I don't think it matters how you learn these concepts and how you visualize them in your head. My native language is not english but still I can think in it, through practice. I think the same applies to programming languages, just as long as the language has that expressive power. If it doesn't confine itself to a singular style or paradigm but lets you choose, isn't that the most expressive of languages?