They really want the performance of asm.js code to be predictable, and as a compiler writer, I believe this is entirely possible. The subset of JS they use is made to have good performance. The people here don't seem to like some of the implementation details of NaCl. I think they also might just not want to let Google impose something. Also, the inventor of JavaScript is the Mozilla CTO (shhh!).
I'm partial to PNaCl too. I think it's probably better, in the long term, to have a standard bytecode format to compile to... But, asm.js might win this war, just because the road to asm.js support is much shorter. You basically already can compile C programs to asm.js and have them run cross-browser. Worse is better?
I'm partial to PNaCl too. I think it's probably better, in the long term, to have a standard bytecode format to compile to... But, asm.js might win this war, just because the road to asm.js support is much shorter. You basically already can compile C programs to asm.js and have them run cross-browser. Worse is better?