Hey, welcome to the Feather Systems blog. This is the first post of many, documenting our journey towards creating simpler systems for better performance on the web.

This post will document our initial experiments rendering the Mandelbrot set with JavaScript, Web-workers & emerging web technologies like webassembly. You can access the project here and view the code here.

These experiments were tested and measured by the team to properly document each technology's advantages & disadvantages.

To elucidate, let's start with fractals & the mandelbrot set:

The Mandelbrot Set

The Mandelbrot Set is defined as the set of complex numbers for which the function formula does not diverge when formula. An image of how the Mandelbrot set looks as follows. Points shaded black are in the set. We are using the Mandelbrot set to benchmark our code.

Mandelbrot Render

The Mandelbrot Set is stunning. We highly recommend getting lost in its beauty using our rendering website ( Click to zoom and Shift + Click to zoom out.

Benchmark Structure

Click to Read

The benchmarking site is designed to display each iteration we developed with a rough estimate for performance measured in milliseconds. For each version, a function was written to perform the Mandelbrot calculations and return a JavaScript ImageData object that could be easily put on the Canvas. Once the user selects a version from the drop down menu, the corresponding function is called. Since the functions can take some time to complete, they are called from a Web-worker to prevent the main thread from freezing while the function runs. The performance is calculated using calls before and after the function call that returns the ImageData object.

Across all iterations, I used the following values:

const START_X_TOTAL:f32 = 0.300283

const START_Y_TOTAL:f32 =  -0.48857

const WINDOW:f32 = 0.01

const step_X:f32= WINDOW/f32(canvas_width);

const step_Y:f32 = WINDOW/f32(canvas_height);

const ITER_CONST:i32 = 1000


const N_THREADS = 4

We assume that the canvas width and height are integers. To determine if a point was in the Mandelbrot set, we iterated the Mandelbrot function on the point up to ITER_CONST, returning the number of times the function had iterated. We use the returned Mandelbrot value to set the color.

You may notice that RGB values get clamped at 255, making it seem like the exercise of iterating all the way to 1000 is just for the sake of testing performance, which it is. (Here is a whole list of smarter and better coloring algorithms that we will not be using in this benchmarking exercise.)

As of when this article was published, the following versions are available on the Benchmarking Site:

  • Naive JS single threaded
  • Rust WASM using bindgen (single threaded)
  • Assemblyscript old version (single threaded, not thread safe)
  • Assemblyscript new version (single threaded, thread safe)
  • Assemblyscript SIMD WASM (singlethreaded, multithreaded)
  • New JS(less memory allocation) singlethreaded
  • New JS SharedMemoryBuffer multithreaded

Implementing the Mandelbrot Set in JavaScript by Abhinuv Allu

Click to Read

I began the testing process with the web's best frenemy, Javascipt.

I started with a naive approach to implement the Mandelbrot set in JavaScript and then try and optimize later. I started by creating a class for Complex numbers. This class would be able to add, multiply and return the magnitude. For the magnitude, I used a library function Math.hypot. Down below is our first initial implementation of the Complex class.

class Complex {
    constructor(real, imag){
      this.real = real;
      this.imag = imag;
//Function that add this complex number with another complex number, cplx
    add(cplx) {
      this.real += cplx.real;
      this.imag += cplx.imag;
      return this;
//Fuction that returns the magnitude of this complex number
     mag(cplx) {
      return Math.hypot(this.real,this.imag);
//Function that multiplies this complex number with another complex number, cplx
    mul(cplx) {
      const real_part = this.real*cplx.real - this.imag*cplx.imag;
      const imag_part = this.imag*cplx.real + this.real*cplx.imag;
      this.real = real_part;
      this.imag = imag_part;
      return this;

The program iterated through each element of the canvas to compute whether or not they were in the Mandelbrot set.

function mandelbrot(cplx) {
  let z = new Complex(0,0);
  let count = 0;
  while (z.mag() <= 2 && count < ITER_CONST) {
    z = (z.mul(z)).add(cplx);
  return count;

These data points were added to an array which is then painted onto the Canvas. I had some ideas about optimizations with help from the profiler, however the most fascinating insight was that the Math.hypot function for two numbers is an order of magnitude slower than squaring, adding, and then computing the square root. During the profiling of the initial code I found out that Math.hypot was taking up most of the time.


Improved JavaScript

To improve the initial naive approach, I decided to add multithreading. I started this with a naive way of having the worker compute each point and then send it back to receive the next point but, the message overhead was immense and resulted in a single threaded function as I only had one worker. The next step was experimenting with divisibility classes to add multiple workers. But this had the same problem where the overhead of sending & receiving a message from the workers was just too much. Eventually, I figured out that I would have each worker compute a set number of rows at a time.

//This is in the main function which calls the workers to do the work
for(let i=0; i<workerCount; i++){
  const worker = new Worker("worker.js");
  const INDEXES_PER_WORKER = Math.floor((X_LEN*Y_LEN)/workerCount);
  const N_ROWS_PER_THREAD = Math.floor(X_LEN/workerCount);
  worker.onmessage = ({data}) => {
    const COMPUTED_ROWS = data;
    points_array[i]= COMPUTED_ROWS;
    if(doneCount == workerCount) {
      points_array = points_array.flat();

//This is how it looks now in the worker function
onmessage = function({data}) {
  const points_in_thread = new Array(Y_LEN * N_ROWS_PER_THREAD);

    for(let x = -2.0 + START_XC * STEP_X, count_x = 0; count_x < N_ROWS_PER_THREAD; x+=STEP_X, count_x++){
      for( let y = -2.0, count_y =0; count_y < Y_LEN; y+=STEP_Y, count_y++){
        points_in_thread[count_x * Y_LEN + count_y] = mandelbrot(new Complex(y,x));

Shared Buffer

Since all the points would be added to the same array it would make sense that having a shared buffer to reduce the overhead needed to send array points would decrease the compute time. So I added a shared buffer that was formatted like an ImageData object so it would be easier to paint it onto the canvas. This required some rewriting of the some steps here and there, but it ended up being faster.

The other issue with using a Shared Buffer is that I had to add promises to the code, so werefactored it to include promises.

//This is in the main function which calls the workers to do the work
return new Promise((resolve) => {
    var worker = new Worker("benchmarks/multithreaded-js/sharedworker.js");


    worker.onmessage = function(){
      resolve("worker finished");

  const window = WINDOW;
  const STEP_X = window/X_LEN;
  const STEP_Y = window/Y_LEN;
  const workerCount = 4;
  const sharedBuffer = new SharedArrayBuffer(X_LEN*Y_LEN*4);
  const sharedArray = new Uint8ClampedArray(sharedBuffer);

  const N_ROWS_PER_THREAD = Math.floor(X_LEN/workerCount);

  var promises = [];

  for(let i=0; i<workerCount; i++){

    parameters.START_YC = N_ROWS_PER_THREAD * i;

//This is how it looks now in the worker function
onmessage = function({data}) {
    for( let y = START_Y_TOTAL+ START_YC * STEP_Y, count_y =START_YC; count_y < N_ROWS_PER_THREAD+START_YC; y+=STEP_Y, count_y++)
      for(let x = START_X_TOTAL , count_x = 0; count_x < X_LEN; x+=STEP_X, count_x++)
        let index = 4*(count_x  + count_y* X_LEN);
        val = mandelbrot(new Complex(x,y));
         sharedArray[index+ 0] = val; 
         sharedArray[index+ 1] = val; 
         sharedArray[index+ 2] = val; 
         sharedArray[index+ 3] = 255;      

These changes made the code perform a lot better. You can check out it's performance in the "Results" section. JavaScript was extremely performant (especially on Chrome) and gave us hope that pushing the boundaries of speed on the web was possible.

So, What is Webassembly? by Abhishek Cherath

Click to Read

In our quest to further optimize performance, we used webassembly, an emerging web technology optimized for what we are trying to achieve. So, what is it? Insofar as an overview is concerned, nothing beats Lin Clark's cartoon intro here, and the MDN docs here. Put simply, webassembly is a low level typed language that targets the browser's VM. For some reasons[1] , it's very quick and easy to compile into decently fast machine code.

Fundamentally, the language was designed to offer the best possible latency (time to execution) and speed of execution. Low latency is achieved by having a small binary representation (vs javascript's textual representation) and having type definitions and a function table at the start of a .wasm module, which allows compilers to compile in a streaming fashion, instead of needing to have access to the entire file before starting.

Speed of execution requires slow compilation with multiple passes for the compiler to accurately assess the best register allocation, optimize out unnecessary instructions and do whatever other things compilers do. (note: I have frankly no idea what goes into compiler optimization, I just know it takes time)

To satisfy both these goals, browsers (atleast Firefox and Chrome) have two compilers for webassembly, the first compiles the module as it's called from the network, and is basically instant (here, chrome devs claim that theirs can do on the order of 10+ mb of code per second, so the bottleneck will almost always be the speed of the network rather than the compiler.) The second does optimization and dynamically replaces the unoptimized bytecode from the first when it's done.

It's interesting to note here that, a priori there's no reason to expect that webassembly code for high performance stuff [2] (like fractal calculation) will be any faster than its javascript counterpart. Since the hot loop (calculating escape time) is running many thousands of times, one would expect the javascript JIT compiler to infer the output types and get basically similar bytecode, while amortizing its greater overhead considering workload size.

In a later article, I will be examining this conjecture, and taking a deeper look at the flamegraphs and bytecode generated by our benchmarks.

The other interesting thing about webassembly is its memory model, programs do not have access to their own instructions and stack machine memory (so no self modifying code, and no messing with values on the stack). What they do have access to is a block of linear memory, which is backed by a javascript ArrayBuffer, and byte addressed (ie. memory[0] is 1 byte long.)

[1]I'm not entirely sure why, but it's some combination of coding for a simple stack machine, having type information, linear memory, and being easy to parse.

[2]This is mostly true, except for vectorization. SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) instructions are featured in the webassembly spec and implemented by chrome and firefox, which do not expose them in js, and have no plans to do so. (although I suppose there's nothing stopping a JIT from autovectorizing, is there?)

Our Approach to webassembly: As many languages can be compiled to webassembly, we looked at two of the most commonly used ones: Rust & AssemblyScript. In the following sections we will describe our approach to these two languages.

Rust Implementation by Jo Gao

Click to Read


I wrote a similar implementation of the function in Rust that would return an ImageData object of the Mandelbrot Set. It uses wasm-bindgen, a Rust library that will compile Rust code to webassembly, and then generate the bindings and glue between JavaScript and webassembly so that it can be run on the web. It handles all the type conversions between JavaScript and webassembly and facilitates the compilation of Rust to webassembly.

In the iterative in_mandelbrot function, count is set to iterate all the way to 1000 for benchmarking purposes. When returning, count is set to 255 if larger than 255 to prevent having to cast numbers larger than 255 to u8.

fn in_mandelbrot(cplx: &Complex) -> u8 {
    const ITER_CONST: i32 = 1000;
    let mut z = build_complex(0.0, 0.0);
    let mut count: i32 = 0;

    while z.mag() <= 2.0 && count < ITER_CONST {
        z = (z.square()).add(&cplx); // z = z^2 + cplx
        count += 1;

    if count > 255 {
        count = 255;
    count as u8

The magic of wasm-bindgen kicks in here, allowing us to create the ImageData object right in the Rust code by providing the type and the constructor signature:

extern "C" {
    pub type ImageData;

    #[wasm_bindgen(constructor, catch)]
    fn new(data: &Uint8ClampedArray, width: f64, height: f64) -> Result<ImageData, JsValue>;

pub fn run(start_x: f64, start_y: f64, width: u32, height: u32, window: f64) -> ImageData{

    let y_len: i32 = height as i32;
    let x_len: i32 = width as i32;

    let pixels: usize = (x_len * y_len) as usize;

    let mut points_array = vec![0; pixels*4];
    fill_mandelbrot(&mut points_array, start_x, start_y, x_len, y_len, window);

    let pointer = points_array.as_ptr() as usize;

    let mem = wasm_bindgen::memory().unchecked_into::<WebAssembly::Memory>();
    let new_array = Uint8ClampedArray::new(&mem.buffer()).slice(pointer as u32, (pointer + pixels*4) as u32);
    ImageData::new(&new_array, x_len.into(), y_len.into()).unwrap()

After compiling this code, wasm-bindgen outputs a number of files that are meant to be bundled using Webpack and imported to your JavaScript file as an ES6 module, allowing access to the functions that were written in Rust. The idea is that after compiling and importing the module, calling run(...)would return a whole JavaScript ImageData Object.

Unfortunately, our Benchmarking Site is structured to use a web worker to call this function. Modules cannot be imported to web workers. However, they can be imported to module workers, web workers that support module import, but as of today, Firefox does not support this feature.

This is an infeasible solution because I was unwilling to limit the availability of our benchmark site for this implementation. After many hours of tinkering with the existing setup, I found a workaround that eliminated the need for Webpack altogether: after compiling with wasm-bindgen, I copy and pasted the entire outputted .js file with the import and exports removed, appended the wrapper function I had written to it, and called init(...) on the outputted .wasm.

After confirming that this worked, A colleague and I wrote a shell script to automatically do this after compilation. Albeit a little unpleasant on the eyes, it does the job:

sed '/import\W/d;s/^export//g;/default/d' pkg/Mandelbrot.js > tmp_mandel_import.js
cat tmp_mandel_import.js  mandel_src.js > Mandelbrot.js
rm tmp_mandel_import.js

Rust & Webassembly Multi-Threaded

To further improve performance in Rust, I carried out the same calculations, but in parallel this time. An advantage of the Mandelbrot Set is that determining whether a pixel falls within the set or not can be done completely independently of other pixels. The outcome of each pixel has no effect on the others, making the transition to multithreading straightforward.

I used the Parallel Raytracing example. given in the Wasm-Bindgen repo, as a starting point. Using a combination of web workers and the Rayon Crate for data parallelism in Rust yielded a pretty fast multithreaded Mandelbrot Set.

Unfortunately, I was unable to include this version of the Mandelbrot in the final Benchmarking website because I ran into a similar problem with the wasm-bindgen and module output. This time, it was further complicated by the Webworkers being created from within the Rust code. The funky workaround that had allowed for the singlethreaded RustWasm example to run on the Benchmarking Site failed to work the same magic for this implementation.

This version of the Mandelbrot also makes use of the SharedArrayBuffer, and had it been on the site, would not work in Safari and browsers that do not support SharedArrayBuffer Objects.

AssemblyScript by Abhishek Cherath

Click to Read

AssemblyScript compiles a subset of typescript to webassembly. To get an idea of how simple it is to write it, here's essentially the same javascript code from earlier, with type annotations and minor changes for webassembly:

declare const canvas_width: i32;
declare const canvas_height: i32;
declare const ITER_CONST: i16;
declare const START_X_TOTAL:f32
declare const START_Y_TOTAL:f32
declare const WINDOW:f32

class Complex {
	real: f64 = 0;
	imag: f64 = 0;

	constructor(real:f64, imag:f64){
		this.real = real;
		this.imag = imag;

	add(cplx: Complex): Complex {
		this.real = this.real + cplx.real;
		this.imag = this.imag + cplx.imag;
		return this;

	mag(): f64 {
		return Math.sqrt(this.real * this.real + this.imag * this.imag)

	mul(cplx: Complex): Complex {
		const __tempr  = this.real*cplx.real - this.imag*cplx.imag;
		const __tempi = this.imag*cplx.real + this.real*cplx.imag;
		this.real = __tempr;
		this.imag = __tempi;
		return this

	set(real:f64,imag:f64): void {
		this.real = real;
		this.imag = imag;


const z:Complex = new Complex(0,0);
const cplx:Complex = new Complex(0,0)

function mandelbrot(real:f64,imag:f64):i16{

	let count:i16 = 0;
	for (; z.mag() <= 2; count++) {
		(z.mul(z)).add(cplx); // z = z^2 + cplx
		if (count > ITER_CONST) {
	return count;
stores array of i16s at start of memory 
corresponding to escape count at pixels in
export function compute(): void {
	let memcounter = 0
	const step_X:f32 = WINDOW/f32(canvas_width);
	const step_Y:f32 = WINDOW/f32(canvas_height);
	for (let y = START_Y_TOTAL, count_y = 0; count_y < canvas_height; y += step_Y, count_y++){
		for (let x = START_X_TOTAL, count_x = 0; count_x < canvas_width; x += step_X, count_x++){
			store<i16>(memcounter, mandelbrot(x,y));
			memcounter += 2

The only really noteworthy change was to not have new in the hot loop. The Assemblyscript garbage collector had some trouble with it and total allocation would exceed webassembly's 100 page memory limit[1]. I suspect that sort of code will be usable once the webassembly GC proposals, which allow wasm modules to hook into the browser's GC, are implemented.


The fastest way to thread code in browsers is to use SharedArrayBuffer, this also requires the following CORS headers.

Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy: same-origin
Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy: require-corp

This is to ensure cross-origin isolation, which protects against memory being exfiltrated somehow (I might explore this in the future, but that's about all I know for the moment.) webassembly memories can also be created with a backing SharedArrayBuffer, which allows fast multithreading, as separate web-workers can run the same webassembly module and write their results to the same memory, meaning that large objects don't need to be passed around using postmessage, and the many O(N) overheads to do with copying and creating new arrays can be avoided.

However, while Assemblyscript allows access to atomic instructions, it does not implement any sort of locking. So any program that reads and writes to memory will need to be adjusted to thread with shared memory. This means that the program seen above, with its Complex class and set calls reading and writing to the linear memory quite often, is very prone to... interesting behaviour when threaded.

Noisey Mandelbrot

Exhibit A of nondeterministic behavior

That being said, for small examples such as fractal calculation, it's quite easy to limit mutability to local variables (which are on the stack, not in the linear memory, and so are not shared) and avoid the problem entirely. Like in the following code:

function mandelbrot(c_r:f64, c_i:f64):i16{
	let count:i16 = 0;
	let z_r:f64 = 0., z_i:f64 = 0., t_r:f64 = 0., t_i:f64 = 0.;
	for(; z_r*z_r + z_i*z_i < 4; count++) {
		t_r = z_r*z_r - z_i*z_i + c_r;
		t_i = 2*z_i*z_r + c_i;
		z_r = t_r;
		z_i = t_i;
		if(count > ITER_CONST) {
	return count;
stores array of i16s at start of memory 
corresponding to escape count at pixels in
export function compute():void {
	let memcounter = 0
	const step_X:f32 = WINDOW/f32(canvas_width);
	const step_Y:f32 = WINDOW/f32(canvas_height);
	for (let y = START_Y_TOTAL, count_y = 0; count_y < canvas_height; y += step_Y, count_y++){
		for (let x = START_X_TOTAL, count_x = 0; count_x < canvas_width; x += step_X, count_x++){
			store<i16>(memcounter, mandelbrot(x,y));
			memcounter += 2

note that the store instruction there might look like it would cause issues, but as long as threads work on different parts of the image, that should not be a problem.


SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) instructions are special instructions on the CPU that allow multiple additions, multiplications etc to be carried out in parallel on the same core)

SIMD Explaination

By Vadikus - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,

They're not in the webassembly spec as yet, but should be soon, and are currently available on chrome and firefox (although not on ARM in firefox 89, ie. apple M1.) Assemblyscript does not autovectorize code, but allows access to the instructions, and provides some sugar for different types and functions to initialise constant vectors.

The vector size in the proposal is 128 bit, which is a decent compromise and is backed by hardware instructions on most modern computers. In the future, flexible vectors, should be able to allow access to 256, 512 bit vectors that modern intel and AMD CPUs support (consumer ARM chips currently only have 128 bit vectors, as far as I'm aware, although supercomputer ARM chips do have 512 bit vectors.)

Vectorizing the mandelbrot code above is not too bad, althought it does look rather messy:

function mandelbrot_simd(c_rl:v128,c_il:v128):v128{
    let in_set : v128 = i32x4(0,0,0,0);
    let z_r : v128 = f32x4(0.,0.,0.,0.);
    let z_i : v128 = f32x4(0.,0.,0.,0.);
    let t_r : v128 = f32x4(0.,0.,0.,0.);
    let t_i : v128 = f32x4(0.,0.,0.,0.);
    const ones = i32x4(1,1,1,1)
    const fours = f32x4(4.,4.,4.,4.)
    const ITER_CONSTS:v128 = v128.splat<i32>(ITER_CONST);
    let count:v128=i32x4(0,0,0,0)
        let total_count:i32 = 0, any_in_convergence_region:boolean = true;
        any_in_convergence_region &&
        total_count < ITER_CONST;
    ) {
        z_i = v128.add<f32>(c_il, v128.mul<f32>(v128.add<f32>(z_r,z_r),z_i));
        z_r = v128.add<f32>(c_rl, v128.sub<f32>(t_r,t_i));
        t_r = v128.mul<f32>(z_r,z_r);
        t_i = v128.mul<f32>(z_i,z_i);
        const mask = v128.le<f32>(v128.add<f32>(t_r,t_i),fours);
        any_in_convergence_region = v128.any_true(mask);
        count = v128.add<i32>(count, v128.and(ones,mask));
    return count;

This should basically be a 4x speedup over the previous code, when run single threaded. Multithreaded, that number will vary depending on how threads are allocated, as work only gets completed as fast as the slowest thread.

Compiler Flags

For the examples above, some memory is reserved for the purposes of storing the image, in assemblyscript this is achieved by passing the --memoryBase flag to the asc compiler (as seen in the makefile below)

The other flags are tuned for maximum performance (thanks to Max Graey for -O3 instead of -O3s/z) and to enable necessary features (threads, SIMD.)

MEMORY_FLAGS = --maximumMemory 80 --importMemory --noExportMemory --initialMemory 80 --memoryBase 4000000
DEBUG_FLAGS = --sourceMap
FEATURE_FLAGS = --enable simd --enable threads
RUNTIME_FLAGS = --runtime stub
start: install
	npx asc assembly/mandel_final.ts -b build/mandel_final.wasm -t build/mandel_final.wat $(OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS) $(MEMORY_FLAGS) $(FEATURE_FLAGS) $(RUNTIME_FLAGS) $(DEBUG_FLAGS)

	npm i 

Multithreaded SIMD Speed

Benchmark results will be discussed near the end of this article, but the speed of the multithreaded SIMD code is quite astonishing, roughly 3x the speed of multithreaded JS using sharedarraybuffers, and I'm guessing that's held back by module message passing overheads. HERE is a basic mandelbrot zoom implementation using it (only works in firefox(≥90 on apple m1) and chrome, here's the github repo.) I'll be working in boundary estimation and period checking along with xaos zoom algorithm into it in a couple of months, so stay tuned for that!

I'm also fairly certain that this is the first(?) SIMD mandelbrot implementation for webassembly, so if anyone wants to use it for anything (under the terms of the GPLv3 License) feel free!

[1] A page being 64KiB (65,536 bytes), so about 6.5 mb max memory


First, we know that our benchmarks here are not rigorous in the slightest. Their purpose was to give us an idea of the rough performance capabilities of the tools we're working with, to help inform our choices as we port certain programs (stay tuned!) to webassembly. We will be refining this tool in the future, and hope to have (somehow) bytecode outputs and flamegraphs on the site.

Benchmark Firefox 89(ms) Chrome 91 (ms)
Naive-js 2992 631
Improved-js 1755 292
Multithreaded-js 705 129
Singlethreaded-Rust * ** 296 300
Simple Assemblyscript 494 497
Optimized non-SIMD AssemblyScript 250 262
Optimized SIMD AssemblyScript 124 108
SIMD Multithreaded AssemblyScript 43 43

All numbers approximate, gathered from fresh browser session after reboot on an HP Envy 13 with an i5-8265U CPU @ 1.60GHz and 8gb of RAM running Ubuntu 20.04.2 with kernel 5.8.0. Average of 5 runs (first 2 runs dropped)

The results of our benchmark (at least approximately) line up with what one would expect, but we find a few items of interest. First, as far as the javascript implementations are concerned, Firefox is significantly slower than chrome. Second, webassembly speeds are comparable for both browsers.

The performance advantage of webassembly (without SIMD) over javascript for this benchmark is basically negligible for chrome. In a future article it'll be interesting to see whether the bytecode generated is also similar.

But the key insight here is clear, webassembly offers predictable performance, across browser engines. We'll be adding fallbacks for safari later to see if this holds there as well. Further, we'll compare the results to native code.

*The rust code can likely be sped up with some optimizations here and there, but for a rough effort from a novice rust programmer, this is representative.

*** The rust code was improved by @MaxGraey and now lines up with what one would expect*

See the demo here.

Final Thoughts

As tools of application distribution, browsers have some undeniable advantages over the traditional pipeline of download → extract onto disk → load from disk for execution. For most programs, it is technically unnecessary to have all of their assets present to be able to enjoy some subset of their capabilities. Of course, adding such partial update capabilities is non-trivial, and would add significant complexity. But web developers and browser vendors have made a lot of progress in enabling this essentially by default, and with webassembly, enabling it in areas where it's not previously been feasible.

Further, cloud offloading enables users to easily sustain state across devices and in some cases avoid calculation heavy code in the interests of battery life or smooth performance. The easiest way to realize these advantages is to distribute one's application in an environment that does this by default: the browser. But a prerequisite for this is that the experience is not overly hampered by being in the browser, and bringing webassembly to near native performance is a key part of that.

There is an opportunity here to allow people to access performance heavy applications like games and simulations on their devices without having to get into the nasty business of managing local state, which accounts for what, 99% of problems installing and using software? We want to help build this, and over the next few weeks, will be releasing demos to show what it might look like, so stay tuned!

Of course, the possible bad end here is that the canvas ends up as an inefficient GUI toolkit to have fungible programmers at the cost of user experience, we hope that doesn't happen.

Further Reading:

David Beazley. (2019). A Talk Near the Future of Python (a.k.a., Dave live-codes a Webassembly Interpreter).

Firefox’s low-latency webassembly compiler – wingolog. (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2021, from

firefox’s low-latency webassembly compiler—Wingolog. (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2021, from

Pereira, F. M. Q., & Palsberg, J. (2006). Register Allocation After Classical SSA Elimination is NP-Complete. In L. Aceto & A. Ingólfsdóttir (Eds.), Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (Vol. 3921, pp. 79–93). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

WebAssembly. (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2021, from

WebAssembly compilation pipeline · V8. (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2021, from