<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>tracker1</author><text>I think it depends on what you are doing... I think there are huge opportunities for interop performance as well as just optimized process paths for certain things. I&amp;#x27;m not that deep on the technical side, more of an avid observer.  It just seems that as long as many things in WASM are slower than general performance for say Java or C#, that there is definitely room to improve things.&lt;p&gt;As an example, looking at the in-the-box Garbage Collection support that&amp;#x27;s being flushed out, as an example will improve languages that rely on GC (C#, Java, Go, etc) without having to include an implementation for the runtime.&lt;p&gt;Another point where there&amp;#x27;s potential for massive gains are the browser UI interop as well, and I think there&amp;#x27;s been a lot of effort to work within&amp;#x2F;around current limitations, but obviously there&amp;#x27;s room to improve.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Retr0id</author><text>&amp;gt; I don’t expect the WASM translations to be much (or any) faster at the moment, but I do expect them to get faster over time, as the WASM engines in web browsers improve (just as JS engines have).&lt;p&gt;I haven&amp;#x27;t been following WASM progress, do people generally share this optimism for WASM performance improvement over time, relative to JS? I was under the vague impression that all the &amp;quot;obvious&amp;quot; optimizations had already been done (i.e. JIT, and more recently, SIMD support)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Dynamic translation of Smalltalk to WebAssembly</title><url>https://thiscontext.com/2023/07/26/dynamic-translation-of-smalltalk-to-webassembly/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dgb23</author><text>There seems to be alot of work going into WASM itself, much of it is performance related:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WebAssembly&amp;#x2F;proposals&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;WebAssembly&amp;#x2F;proposals&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>Retr0id</author><text>&amp;gt; I don’t expect the WASM translations to be much (or any) faster at the moment, but I do expect them to get faster over time, as the WASM engines in web browsers improve (just as JS engines have).&lt;p&gt;I haven&amp;#x27;t been following WASM progress, do people generally share this optimism for WASM performance improvement over time, relative to JS? I was under the vague impression that all the &amp;quot;obvious&amp;quot; optimizations had already been done (i.e. JIT, and more recently, SIMD support)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Dynamic translation of Smalltalk to WebAssembly</title><url>https://thiscontext.com/2023/07/26/dynamic-translation-of-smalltalk-to-webassembly/</url></story>