> On 03/12/2018 11:42 PM, Jason H wrote: > > 1. True ActiveX was extremely limiting, NaCL less so, Emscripten/asm.js > > less so. I can't really argue much difference between WebAssembly and > > asm.js though, given asm.js's previous performance claims. > > In my experience WebAssembly is much more performant than asmjs, wasm > also creates binaries that are at least 10x less huge than asmjs.
Active Qt was about 12mb IIRC for Tetris or samegame we're not we're still looking at the same sizes. > > Given the limitations outlined above, and considering the ecosystem > >implications, I am left to conclude that Qt needs to include a proper > >web component. > > as they say... patches welcome :) Sure. But how much refactoring is Qt going to accept without a commitment to the web agenda? How much prioritization will it be allowed? Will the Qt company support it as a real part of Qt? It's easy to say patches welcome, when there are none, but when there's a deluge will that love still be there? What if I got the QmlWeb people to bring it into Qt, how soon can we release it with fanfare and call Qt a web development platform? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
