> And I couldn't help thinking "Why would people have complicated stacks to create Web 2.0 apps for the Google Web, when they have this?", in other words an opportunity to break out of the browser straitjacket.

Perhaps because they still believe in the promise of Web 1.0, where their app is a graceful-enhancement over an initial server-rendered document, that can be easily worked with at a DOM level by any HTML scraper, easily baked to a PDF and printed, easily re-laid-out for better readability just by changing the browser font size, easily text-to-speech'ed (including ARIA roles, alt text, etc), easily re-styled with a user-agent stylesheet, easily intermediated by browser extensions, and so forth.

I've yet to see a WASM-driven web application that's any less opaque to these technologies than a Flash or ActiveX applet would be.

Browser apps are not only about these usecases, which are mostly a document-use-of-DOM feature. Which is fine for certain cases. However for a synthesiser UI, IDE, designtools or even a SDXL explorer flowgraph i don't really care about that. You want fast UI, with threads available to make workloads not hiccup the system. And thats what we're building with makepad. I found the stranglehold that HTML put on application developers over the years to be so demotivating i almost quit building applications that ran in a browser entirely. But luckily now we have wasm+rust+webgl/gpu and things can happen again.

All fair points. But there's no reason that these things, like ARIA standard, aren't added. That is independent of WebAssembly standard. I did not mention "Google Web" for no reason. The "promise of Web 1.0" in terms of being open is near dead with Google DRM's and the browser oligopoly and all that jazz.

Also mentioned Web 2.0 for a reason. The "cram full-blown app into browsers" web, that uses Rube Goldberg machines behind the scenes. Joking aside, these (btw, also opaque) dynamic applications can hugely benefit from a new paradigm. While the Web itself can go back more to its original 1.0 roots of hypermedia, and allowing more and simpler browsers to wield its content.

That demonstrates that you can use WebAssembly to make a snappy UI, it does not demonstrate that you must use WebAssembly.

It's nearly ten years old now but I remember being absolutely blown away by React Canvas, a UI toolkit that leveraged React but instead of rendering DOM nodes it rendered to a <canvas/> tag. Beautiful, 60fps stuff. All written in JS. Unfortunately all the demos seem to have disappeared since but here's a blog post about it:

https://engineering.flipboard.com/2015/02/mobile-web

Point is, both Makepad and React Canvas have something in common: they ditched the DOM. There are both advantages and disadvantages to doing so but the relevant point is that you don't need to use WebAssembly to do it.

> they ditched the DOM

I strongly recommend NOT doing this. It sounds like a fantastic idea in theory (who wouldn't want pixel-perfect control over all client viewports?), but there are so many caveats and edge cases that make it a nightmare in practice. You don't even have to get into accessibility or internationalization stuff to find the kinds of sharp edges that scared me away. Simple things like HiDPI, resizing viewports and drawing text.

I spent a solid 3-4 months of time on this path. I was so tired of fighting platform/browser quirks that it made sense. Now, I accept those quirks as battle-tested features and don't try to fight them anymore.

The only reason you should actually ditch the DOM is if you are doing something like Overwatch in the browser. Even then, I'd argue you would be a complete dumbass if you skip out on the power of CSS, etc. for purposes of handling your Menu/HUD elements.

Fair point. I alluded to what you are saying in my last sentence, and agree.

Rendering your UI entirely in a canvas tag isn't a new idea. If you have ADA compliance requirements or just want to build E2E tests, good luck.

Saying "Oh, canvas tag. Been there, done that" doesn't do this project justice. It is not new ideas that matter here. It is the execution of them into workable solutions.

People have been there, done that and been sued for it. This is an ADA Title 2 minefield, not a workable solution. They haven't solved that issue, so it remains a nonviable approach that will not make it to mainstream adoption just like the decade of previous examples.