In light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic - OPTASY would like to offer DRUPAL website support for any Health Care, Government, Education and Non-Profit Organization(s) with critical crisis communication websites or organizations directly providing relief. Stay Safe and Stay Well.

WebAssembly vs JavaScript: Is WASM Faster than JS? When Does JavaScript Perform Better?

WebAssembly vs JavaScript: Is WASM Faster than JS? When Does JavaScript Perform Better?

by Silviu Serdaru on Dec 07 2018

“Will WebAssembly replace JavaScript by 20XX?” This is one of those “sensationalizing” news of the moment, right? But still: if we were to run a WebAssembly vs JavaScript performance comparison, which one would be the winner?

And would we have the same winner for different implementations? 

We're all looking forward to the future of web development now that WebAssembly has come around to “tempt” us with near-native performance to the browser. 

Yet, most of us still write code in JavaScript, despite the predictions of its “imminent extinction”. And there still are use cases where JS outperforms WASM.

So, let's find out:

 

1. The Rise of WebAssembly: The First Alternative to JS for Web Development

Just think about it:

We've been having JavaScript as the one and only programming language to be used natively in web browsers and then... WebAssembly stepped in.

“But what is WebAssembly more precisely?” Is it a really an assembly language, like its name suggests? Well, here's a hopefully clear enough definition for you to ponder on:

WASM is a new type of code — with a small-sized fast binary format — for modern browsers. A “compile target”, if you wish.

One that you get to use for compiling any programming language (JS here included).

And NO:

It is not an assembly language, it's not built for a specific machine.

And no, you don't write code in WebAssembly: you use it to compile any given language.

What it does is compile higher level languages and then run those web apps in the browser a lot faster than JavaScript (due to its lightweight, low-level binary format, remember?)

 

2. WebAssembly vs JavaScript: Essential Differences

Now that we've seen what WebAssembly is and what it is not, let me briefly outline the key features that set our 2 “contestants” apart:

JavaScript:

 

  • it's dynamically typed
  • it's highly flexible
  • it's delivered in human-readable code

     

WebAssembly:

 

  • it's just fast(er)
  • it's delivered via a small-sized binary format
  • it's strongly typed

     

3. How Does WebAssembly Work? What's Behind Its “Near-Native Performance”?

Why is WebAssembly faster? How does it work?”

Here's WASM in action:

 

  1. you, the developer, write the code for your web app (in any programming language)
  2. next, you compile it into WebAssembly bytecode
  3. then, this code is run in the web browser, where it turns into native machine code and... executed. 

     

And it gets loaded, parsed, and executed way faster compared to JavaScript.

Why?

Because its binaries are lighter than the textual JS files and, therefore, faster to decode...

 

4. 3 Performance-Intensive Use Cases for WebAssembly

Before I run an “enlightening” WebAssembly vs JavaScript performance comparison, let me highlight the use cases where WASM “shines supreme” as a web performance “booster.

First of all, when you say “common uses cases for WebAssembly”, think about all those performance-critical cases:

 

  • video editing
  • 3D rendering
  • video games
  • music streaming
  • encryption
  • image recognition

     

WebAssembly's built as a target for writing in-browser software.

In short: think of all those use cases where JavaScript would usually struggle to reach the needed level of performance.

And now, let's get specific:

 

  1. porting a desktop app to the web: WebAssembly supports those scenarios that go beyond GUI delivered via HTML
  2. high-performance code already existing in a targetable language: deploy it as a WebAssembly module; here, you could keep the less performance-critical elements in JavaScript
  3. high-performance code to be written from the ground up: where, obviously, asm.js is not a suitable choice

     

In short:

 

  • with WebAssembly there's only one step to complete — the compilation step —  for running your app in any browser; portability is one of its main strengths
  • if top performance's critical for your web app, you might want to consider WebAssembly as an alternative to JavaScript

     

5. WebAssembly vs JavaScript: Performance Comparison

Now that we've settled that WebAssembly is usually faster than JS, let's:

 

  • find out when precisely. When does WASM outperform JS?
  • dig some more into the load of features that enable WebAssembly to perform better
  • discover all those use cases where JS can't be “dethroned”

     

5.1. WebAssembly's binaries are faster to download and to execute

“Why?” Because they're smaller than JS's textual files.

By comparison, JavaScript would need to:

 

  • parse
  • compile
  • optimize

     

… the code before executing it in the browser.

Although it's:

 

  • easy to write
  • doesn't need to get compiled ahead (being a dynamically typed language)

     

… JavaScript still needs more time to do all the needed work before executing the code.

5.2. With WebAssembly, memory gets managed manually

In other words: there's no garbage pile-up to impact performance.

 

5.3. WebAssembly reduces the initial load time

Any WebAssembly vs JavaScript performance analysis would point out that WASM comes with some significant time-parsing improvements.

Here's why it decodes much faster than JavaScript:

 

  1. it has a binary format
  2. it's statically typed (it doesn't need to “guess” what types should be used)
  3. it performs its optimization work in advance while compiling the source code

     

By comparison, JavaScript would need to:

 

  1. first turn text into a data structure (or i.e “abstract syntax tree” or AST)
  2. then, turn that AST into binary format

     

Just think of the JS-heavy web apps striving to parse all that data in due time.

WebAssembly is proven to score 3 times better at load time.

 

5.4. JavaScript performs better on smaller array sizes

In a WebAssembly vs JavaScript “duel” WASM would always perform better on larger array sizes, powering extremely fast web applications.

 

5.5. WebAssmebly files load faster once in cache

The moment they get stored in the cache of the browser, WASM files are easier to load, compared to JS's source code.

 

5.6. JavaScript often performs better during execution

Once fully optimized, WebAssembly is slower when executing code in the browser.

And this is partly (some) browsers' “fault”: 

On Microsoft edge, for instance, WebAssembly executes terribly slowly.

5.7. WebAssembly doesn't really “outshine” JS in terms of run-time performance 

 

6. What Next? Will WebAssembly Become More Than Just a Web-Based Solution?

Well, that's the goal, at least: 

To go beyond its common use in web browsers.

To upgrade it from a web-based solution to the go-to option for:

 

  • desktop apps
  • mobile apps
  • other execution environments

     

Moreover, one of the “forecasts” is that we'll no longer talk about a “WebAssembly vs JavaScript” rivalry in the future, but about a cohabitation of the 2:

You'll still be able to write your code in JavaScript all while leveraging the speed that WebAsssembly brings to the table: improved frameworks and libraries.

“Will WebAssembly replace JavaScript by 20XX?” 

I'm certain that it won't: JS is still a convenient and fast choice for too many tasks.

Yet, we will witness a successful collaboration of the 2.

Photo by Chris Liverani on Unsplash.

Development

We do Web development

Go to our Web development page!

Visit page!

Recommended Stories

Create React App vs Next.js: Which One Should You Go With for Building Your Next App?
You're about to start working on a new app project and you're confused: Create React App vs Next.js - what's the difference?  Which option's best for you? Considering your SEO,  SSR, API, and performance needs. And they're frustratingly similar: they both enable you to build React apps without the need to use Webpack for bundling it (or the need to do any code splitting) they both make it possible for you to have your React app up and running in no time Still, each framework comes with its own pros and cons and specific use cases. So, in this post, you'll find your answers to the following questions: What are the key differences between CRA and Next.js? What are the main benefits of using Next.js? What are the main benefits of using Create React App? What are the downsides of Next.js? What are the downsides of Create React App? When would you want to use one over the other? 1. What's the Key Difference Between CRA and Next.js? SSR vs CSR... It's where all their differences stem from. Next.js apps are rendered on the client-side (CSR), but the framework supports server-side rendering (SSR), as well. By comparison, Create React App apps are rendered only on the client-side. In other words: CRA generates HTML code in the client browser, whereas Next.js generates it in the server, based on the URL.  So, your "Create react App vs Next.js" dilemma comes down to whether a static page meets your needs or not entirely. 2. What Are the Main Benefits of Using Next.js? Now that you know what's the fundamental difference between the 2 systems for building React apps, let's put the spotlight on Next.js. Why would you choose it? because it's so simple to set up, build, and even host a Next.js app: you have packages for almost all the key additions that call for Webpack configuration (SaSS, CSS, TS...) because rendering React apps becomes much easier, regardless of where the data comes from because you can benefit from automatic server rendering and code splitting (that will increase performance) because SSR (server-side rendering) will give your app a major performance boost  because it's a lightweight framework for both static and server-rendered universal JS apps because it's good for SEO (with everything being generated from the server...) 3. Create React App vs Next.js: What Are the Main Benefits of Using CRA? In a "Next.js vs create-react-app" debate, what are the strongest reasons for opting for CRA to build your React app? it's easier to deploy you get to build a single page React app with... zero configuration (no time-consuming setup needed) you don't need to deal with Webpack or Babel it's plain simple (an empty div and just a few js files) and provides all the needed HTML code to render your app on the client-side  the development process is much smoother better developer experience In short, with Create React App you basically run just one command and the framework sets up all the tools you need to start developing your app on the spot. 4. What Are the Downsides of Next.js? What could make you think twice before choosing Next.js for building your next app? the fact that it's opinionated: there's a Next.js way of doing things and you're constrained to... adjust to it if you later want to use a router different from its own filled-based one (or add Redux maybe), you'll discover that it's not that flexible  5. What Are the Downsides of Create React App? In a "Create React App vs Next.js" debate, why would you rule out CRA? because it only supports client-side rendering, which is not enough if it's a high-performing app that you want to build because no code splitting translates into lower performance because it's not good for SEO (since it doesn't render pages on the server) 6. When Would You Want to Use Next.js? As a rule of thumb, use Next.js: if you need to build a fast, production-ready app (SSR injects top speed into your React application) if public SEO is a crucial factor your app project if it's a dynamic page that you need to create (wihout having to write your own bundling) if it's an eCommerce app that you're building (Next.js is more suited for the cart, the stock inventory, and other highly dynamic pages) 7. When Would You Want to Use Create React App? When would you choose it over Next.js? when you need to build a React app really fast; with CRA you can skip the configuration and the setting up part when you need to create a landing page for a product: Create React App makes it so much simpler to put it together when it's a SPA that you need to build 8. In Conclusion... CRA is easy, while Next.js "seduces" you with better performance and SEO. Is it a single page React app that you need to get up and running fast and you don't need SSR? Create React App might just be the best choice for you. Is it a fast-loading app that you're building? Is performance business-critical for you and SEO much more than just a nice-to-have? You might want to consider Next.js then for your next app. Need a team of experienced app developers to build it for you? Just send us your feature list and... let's build it! Image by Pexels from Pixabay   ... Read more
Silviu Serdaru / Aug 07'2020
What’s the Fundamental Difference Between Gatsby and Next.js? How Do You Choose?
You're building a React website/application. You have your bulky list of functionalities all set, you know how you want it to look, but can't decide on the React framework to build it on: What's the main difference between Gatsby and Next.js, after all? And what's the difference between server-side rendering and static site rendering? Since both frameworks seem to be serving your main goals:   not to get tangled up in config or routing to generate a fast, fully accessible and SEO-friendly website to provide you with boilerplate application   So, what's the fundamental differentiator between Gatsby and Next? The one(s) that'll help you identify the framework that best covers your specific use case. Or, are there several of them (differentiators)? Just keep on reading:   1. But First: What Do Gatsby and Next.js Have in Common? How are they similar?    they're both React frameworks they're both great options for SEO purposes they're both great options if you need a high performance React app/website they both provide entirely formed HTML pages they both provide boilerplate application they both simplify and speed up the React app/website development cycle  they both generate SPA out-of-the-box they both provide great developer experience   In short: both Next.js and Gatsby score well in categories like speed and SEO; they're both awesome solutions to streamline app/website development in React. But the way they go about it... that's where these frameworks are fundamentally different.   2. How Does GatsbyJS Work? It builds HTML code on build time. That would be the short(est) answer to your question. But if we were to elaborate upon it: GatsbyJS is a static site generator that... generates (static) HTML code during the “build” process. How? It fetches data from external sources — APIs, Contentful, WordPress, markdown files —  and uses GraphQL to render it. Example: say you have a blog. In this case, you could use Gatsby to fetch your blog posts from... Contentful. Or any other repository where you might be storing your content (e.g. WordPress or Drupal).   3. What's Next.js? A tool for rendering pages on the server-side. And a more detailed answer would be: It's a React framework that supports server-side rendering. Meaning that it generates the needed HTML code dynamically, from the server, each time a request is being sent through. In short: your browser's provided with pre-rendered HTML code instead of empty “div”. Now, how does its distinctive way of going about building a React app/website suit you? It enables you to develop multi-page applications using static rendering and serving dynamic data from a back-end.   4. What Are They Used For? Specific Use Cases for Gatbsy and for Next.js What's the difference between Gatsby and Next.js in terms of use case? In other words: when should you choose one over the other?   4.1. Specific Use Cases for GatsbyJS 1. Blogs and small-scaled websites And I'm talking here about a particular scenario: When you have no comments section on your blog or, at least, not a very “busy” one. So, a use case where you don't need to render content every 5-10 minutes. Since blogs are static and their content doesn't change that frequently, Gatbsy's ecosystem makes the perfect fit for them.  And you have 2 options for your blog post creation and publishing process:   you write a blog post and the npm build will generate a corresponding HTML page you write a blog post in Contentful (or a CMS of your choice), publish it and recompile your blog in Netfly   2. Landing pages Again, since they use static content, landing pages make an ideal use case for GatsbyJS.  Where do you add that Gatsby “spoils” you with such a wide collection of plugins to choose from and to boost your landing page with: PWA, inline critical CSS, AMP...   4.2. Specific Use Cases for Next.js 1. Content-packed websites Dealing with lots of content? Or are you expecting your site's content load to grow, over time?  Then Next.js should be your first choice.  The reason is simple: Just imagine your Gatsby framework overstrained to rebuild all that content over and over again. Not precisely the most time-effective solution to go with, don't you think? 2. When you need more freedom for accessing your data Do you want to empower your content team to publish content on their own? Then you might want to consider Next.js.   3. To-Do Apps They make the perfect use case for server-side rendering: Next.js retrieves the content for your list, from the server, and displays the to-do's upfront.   5. The Fundamental Difference Between Gatsby and Next.js Is... … that Gatsby's a statically generator, while Next.js generates HTML dynamically.  Image by Colin Behrens from Pixabay The first creates JS/HTML/CSS at build time, while the second generates it at run time. Or, if you wish to put it this way: Gatsby doesn't depend on a server, while Next can't function without one.   6.4 Other Main Areas Where They Differ For the “Gatsby vs Next” debate doesn't end at the “static vs dynamic” comparison.  There are other factors, as well, that set these 2 React frameworks apart. And we'll outline the 4 most obvious ones:   6.1. Data Handling In case of Gatsby, the framework's the one “deciding” how you should handle data in your app. It needs to know where your data, your images and other types of content will be handled.  What's in it your for? Why would you accept this... “compromise”: to be told how to handle data in your own app? Because: Gatsby, through its rich collection of plugins, enables you to hook up your site to various data sources. This way, you gain external control over your data... By comparison, Next's totally unopinionated. Is gives you the freedom to decide your own data architecture. In short: it doesn't “tie” you to a specific technology. You're free to handle data your own way.   6.2. Deployment You can deploy Gatsby anywhere you need to, with no special configurations, since it's no more than compiled CSS, JS, and HTML. And things are equally straightforward with Next.js, as well. Since it's a Node application, you can host it anywhere you want to...   6.3. Routing With Gatsby, you have a pages directory where you're free to create all the HTML pages needed for your app/website.  Moreover, they provide you an API, as well, for creating routes dynamically. With Next.js you get a “pages” folder, as well, where you can set up your new pages and get your app running, with no routing to config.   6.4. Plugins “What's the main difference between Gatsby and Next.js?” Plugins sure are a powerful differentiator. Gatsby comes “loaded” with an entire ecosystem of plugins.  So, do you need to have your JS minified, you CSS compiled, your...? There must be a Gatsby plugin for it. Image by Michael Schwarzenberger from Pixabay   Next.js, on the other hand, doesn't “tempt” you with plugins, since its smaller scope doesn't justify the usage of plugins... The END! These are the key differences between Next.js and Gatsby, along with their common points and specific use cases. Have you had your “Aha!” moment(s) reading through our post? Have you managed to identify the right framework for your own use case? Photo by Charles ?￰゚ヌᆳ on Unsplash ... Read more
Silviu Serdaru / Nov 12'2019
React Native vs Flutter: Which One to Use to Build Your Cross-Platform App With? And Why?
They're both open-source and some highly popular options for cross-platform app development. They're both backed by huge tech communities... so your struggle is real: "React Native vs Flutter: which one should I go with?" On one hand, you have Flutter, which has gained momentum incredibly fast this year, putting the same question on most developers' lips: Will Flutter replace React Native? On the other hand, you have React Native, which has been around for +4 years now and uses "good old" JavaScript. Should you place your bid on "familiarity" and reliability or should you take the leap and go with a newer, but so promising platform instead? Speaking of which: What are Flutter's selling points more precisely? Those that have instantly propelled it in developers' radar so quickly? Why would you choose Flutter over React Native? And when is the latter the best option?   1. Why Choose Cross-Platform App Development in the First Place? Why would you go with this approach to mobile app development instead of taking the "native" path? Here are the most powerful reasons:   you get to write (most of) your code once and use it on multiple platforms you get to tap into the features of your cross-platform framework of choice to develop various types of mobile apps: social apps, eCommerce apps, interactive apps you get to build a native-like app without getting tangled up in Android, iOS or Java development   Notes:    optimizing your cross-platform app might get discouraging if you're not prepared for it expect it to be less performant than its native counterpart your platform of choice might not ship with all the functionalities that you need (Bluetooth, GPS...), so consider creating new plugins or opting for 3rd party ones to compensate for the lack of certain native features   2. React Native Is an... ... open-source JavaScript framework — or a new version of React, if you wish — launched by Facebook, used for building Android and iOS mobile apps. Source: Facebook.Github.io How does it work? What kind of "witchcraft" does happen under its hood that enables you to build a hybrid app? One that works both on iOS and Android? React Native uses a JavaScript bridge which... bridges your UI code to native components.   3. Reasons Why You Would Choose React Native over Flutter: Top 3   Source: Google Trends So, going back to our "React Native vs Flutter" dilemma: why would you go with Facebook's "prodigy"?   because it's written in JavaScript (entirely) and so it's much easier to find experienced JS developers for your app project because it's more... mature: it's been around for +4 years, which translates into reliability and a high level of popularity among developers because it streamlines the app's development cycle: it's faster (just think "ready-to-use components") to build app-like experiences with React Native than with Flutter   4. Flutter Is... ... Google's open-source SDK, written in Dart, used for building cross-platform apps. How does it work? It leverages the skia rendering engine to render Dart-based UI in both Android and iOS. Source: Flutter.dev 4 Key Features of Flutter:   design-specific features entirely customized environment platform-specific SDKs native-like performance   5. Flutter: Biggest Selling Points and Main Weaknesses What makes this "new kid on the block" so tempting among developers? Source: Stack Overflow What does it bring to the table that React Native can't provide?   it's easier to install it: when using React Native, many developers choose to use Expo precisely for this purpose; there's no way of automating the whole process and you bump into errors pretty often   it's easier to test it compared to the complicated setup that you need to do for testing a React Native app   it uses proprietary UI widget sets (by comparison, React Native uses native components), which give you more freedom to customize your UI block components   it benefits from first-party support for its iOS-style and material design widgets   it uses object-oriented design (due to Dart)   it performs better: Flutter's slightly faster since it depends on a JavaScript bridge, like React Native, for interacting with native components   it speeds up the UI designing process (React Native uses native components, while Flutter uses owner widgets)   And this last one is Flutter's most "seductive" feature:  It allows you to create a new custom layout in no time. "And why would I be hesitant to choose Flutter over React Native?" you might also ask yourself. Here are some of the aspects that might discourage you from using Flutter for building your cross-platform app:   there aren't so many developers working in Dart, the language used for writing Flutter, compared to the deep pool of JS professionals  the development process is a bit lengthier it's still relatively a young platform: you might not have a library for every functionality that you want to implement; not just yet...   6. React Native vs Flutter: You'd Be Better Off With... ... Flutter if:   you need to have your app running on both Android and iOS you're already an experienced C++/Java developer (or developers in your team are), since it'll then be easier for you to learn Dart  high performance is on top of your priority list you want a visually-appealing UI for your cross-platform app   And opt for React Native if:   you're already an experienced JavaScript developer  you put a high value on the support of a giant, mature tech community   The END! How do the scores look like on your evaluation list? Which of the 2 cross-platform solutions would you go with and why? Let us know in the comments below: Photo by Coffee Geek on Unsplash    ... Read more
Silviu Serdaru / Nov 06'2019