> hasn't been a deterrent to anyone for anything yet
This is patently incorrect. Javascript's impact on page load time is so widespread that Google introduced AMP to "enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast ... and high-performing"[1].
If it had been a deterrent, people wouldn't have done it, and we wouldn't have slow loading pages in the first place, and Google wouldn't have an AMP initiative. However, We have slow loading pages, and Google has AMP, which means that load speeds hasn't deterred stopped anyone from adding a ton of JS bloat
Go look at any major site in the wild right now. They all download several MB of JS. Facebook is 1.8MB of JS out of 3.9MB. The BBC is 1.6MB out of 3.8MB. Kotaku is 2.6MB out of 7.5MB. CNN is 2.8MB out of 6.5MB. Hell, here's an article complaining about the size of websites that itself downloads almost 1MB of JS: https://gigaom.com/2014/12/29/the-overweight-web-average-web...
I've written multiplayer VR experiences that run cross-platform through the browser that only clock in at 500KB of JS. You can put a LOT of code in a MB.
You are saying the same thing as he is. Javascript's impact on load time hasn't been a deterrent to people using mountains of bloat in their page.
Thus, webasm being a few times faster to download and parse won't change a whole lot, since few web developers seem to care much about the speed of their pages.
If webasm won't change much, then it isn't reasonable to predict a future of web pages that simply render to the canvas.
This is patently incorrect. Javascript's impact on page load time is so widespread that Google introduced AMP to "enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast ... and high-performing"[1].
[1] https://www.ampproject.org/