> WASM bytecode is also more compact than JS. There's simply no reason the binaries should be even close to the same size.
The author does explain this pretty well. For an exact 1:1 comparison, yes WASM beats JS for size. JS comes with built in functionality (e.g. a garbage collector) that doesn't cost any size, but in the WASM case needs to be brought along taking up space. Even if you don't want GC, you don't get any WASM 'standard library'.
The author does explain this pretty well. For an exact 1:1 comparison, yes WASM beats JS for size. JS comes with built in functionality (e.g. a garbage collector) that doesn't cost any size, but in the WASM case needs to be brought along taking up space. Even if you don't want GC, you don't get any WASM 'standard library'.