- Runs in any browser, zero install.
Meanwhile: Error - The following features required to run Godot projects on the Web are missing: WebGL2 - Check web browser configuration and hardware support
This is on Chrome 148.0.7778.96 (Official Build) (64-bit) on Fedora 44, 14900K, 4090 RTX, 128GB RAM
35MB WASM which relies on browser, which relies on drivers and OS, AND it doesn't work as advertised. I get the point, but point was mistaken.
- Docker can be small too. In this example I was able to compile a full server (rust binary) and package it in a docker (scratch image base) and the total was < 5MB.
https://github.com/srv1n/kurpod/pkgs/container/kurpod-server
wasm version compiles to under a MB though!
- Unity compiles down to 3MB wasm. Though they don't need to ship the dotnet runtime, they use IL2CPP, a proprietary thing that translates dotnet code into C++. Then they run Emscripten on it.
Also I think Godot's WASM outputs used to be 2-3x smaller in Godot 3 (though the C# one was bigger).
You can ship a JS game in kilobytes, although atop 30 million lines of Chromium that's cheating of course :) still good fun.
https://js13kgames.com/
Notch also made a bunch of 4kb Java (not JS) games back in the day, which is probably what got me into this stuff.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090108001738/http://www.mojang...
by CamouflagedKiwi
0 subcomment
- So the engine is 35MB, but what does it run in? By itself it's a binary blob that doesn't do anything.
Chrome seems to be ~404MB installed on here; that is conspicuously missing from the comparisons here to Docker containers which do account for more or less the complete runtime.
- That is a strange title / comparison. Docker images (even slimmed down) have an OS (most likely a Linux distribution), some libs and the runtime needed for a programming language. On it's own a "game engine + WASM binary" is not comparable.
by AshleysBrain
2 subcomments
- Shameless plug but if you like small file size overheads, our browser based game engine Construct[1] exports an empty web project with about 300 KB overhead for a fully-featured engine. We achieve this by going all-in on the web platform so we don't have to ship a heavyweight runtime with it, and using a modular approach where only the components you use get exported.
[1] https://www.construct.net
- Seems like the anti-clickbait title editing removed the “hundreds of”? This confused me because I thought “oh, they’ve stripped down a Docker image to only 1 megabyte, and then a full game engine adds 34MB more” (I missed the WASM on the first read)
by CamouflagedKiwi
0 subcomment
- > Same as ARM nodes a few years ago: cheaper, denser, widely available – still not the default choice.
Because ARM nodes save you a bit of money (they're cheaper but a bit slower, maybe you end up saving 20-30%) but the move isn't trivial for many tech stacks. When you try it you find you have some Python dependency with a C bit that doesn't have an arm wheel, or your browser automation can't run Chrome on those nodes (there isn't a linux/arm64 build of it). If you're using Go you can cross-compile, although it will likely fail without explicitly disabling cgo, and do you know what the consequences of that are?
Basically it very often ended up being more trouble than it was worth.
- Quod is only 64K https://daivuk.itch.io/quod and looks more impressive
by mmcconnell1618
3 subcomments
- 10MB for the Google Homepage! 44MB for Facebook Homepage! I have not been paying attention to website bloat. Wow, and people were annoyed when a site had to download a whole JQuery library for a single function.
- I guess we could also compare what is possible in Amiga demoscene, and plenty of bloat that goes around nowadays.
Looking at the demo, 35MB WASM for that?!?
These are Carrier Command and F-18 Interceptor on 512 KB.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89cUUbwqPN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Whw4E2qpm8
by gchamonlive
1 subcomments
- It's the 35MB wasm, plus the browser runtime, the OS graphical session and the kernel runtime. Docker images are MB because they pack the distro overlay, not because it's unreasonably unoptimized as the clickbaity title suggests.
- Is it fair to compare WASM app to a base install?
The thing runs in a browser that has most of the stuff implemented to integrate with whatever system it runs on, and just needs to present.
It’s payload versus payload + runtime.
- I've been playing with Golang and WASM lately; hands-on WASM was new to me.
I found that many dependencies in the ecosystem (especially older ones) do not support GOARCH=wasm nor GOOS=js / GOOS=wasip1. I've had to fork and add support and then do go.mod replace directives. It can get messy.
Golang build tags make it awesome to have different implementations for different systems.
In the browser, it's all single threaded, so goroutines starve each other. I had to put in "breaths" for interactivity.
There's no local filesystem, so you have to figure out other solutions. Some dependencies use the filesystem as an implementation detail or try to shell out. The program will build, but will error at runtime.
That said, it is pretty sweet when it works. You can make WASM games with ebitengine [1] and it emits instructions for a WebGPU renderer; very efficient and many interactivity concerns are handled for you. The NTCharts demo page [2] combines Zig (Ghostty), WASM+Typescript+GLSL (Ghostty Web), and Golang (booba/ntcharts). The WASM size for the demos there is ~5MB each.
My goal is to make tools for terminal remoting and simplify bringing TUIs to the browser.
[1] https://ebitengine.org
[2] https://nimblemarkets.github.io/ntcharts/demos/heatpicture-p...
press 't' for kitty graphics
- Tbh, 35 MBytes for a game client binary isn't much to brag about, WASM or not.
For game engines the underlying problem is usually that the engine is designed around the idea that "everything is a virtual interface" (e.g. 'jump tables') which can't be dead-code eliminated and all engine features are always included, even when not used by a specific game.
- Back in the Atari 2600 days, we had full AAA games that sold millions fitting in 4KB...
- I recently ported an old brickout clone I made to Sokol (a C header-based game library). The whole executable is 500kb (macos), surely could be smaller with eg symbols stripped, and it has a whole 3d engine (not that i'm using much more than one custom shader to blit the screen, but it is using 3d engine infrastructure nonetheless). I was impressed that in this day and age such efficiency is still fashionable in some corners. The whole game is about 2mb zipped. Are shameless plugs allowed? If you're curious have a peek! github.com/chrishulbert/brickwarrior
- WASM sounds great in theory but it's so much pain in practice. Once as a presentation demo I made it run on ESP32 but in the process of digging deep into runtimes and WASM spec, I wanted to disclose pros vs cons and it killed my presentation.
I realize wasm wasn't designed for embedded but it made me open my eyes to it's intricacies like minimum memory allocation, why not native 1 byte variables?
by mystifyingpoi
0 subcomment
- > Same as ARM nodes a few years ago: cheaper, denser, widely available – still not the default choice.
And rightfully so. Not everything can be guaranteed to work on ARM. It would confuse the hell out of less experienced people trying to launch a simple VPS or something.
by JojoFatsani
0 subcomment
- Skill issue. You can make a Docker image 35mb too.
- The difference is with this you have an entire browser (~500MB install) using typically 1000MB+ of RAM, to run this 35MB file.
Whereas docker is quite small, uses very little RAM, and the image only grows because of what is included inside it, the base images are quite small.
It's pretty cool that a whole game engine these days can still be 35MB, just an odd comparison I think.
- wasm requires a browser isn't really a strong argument. Docker ships a whole operating system.... and still needs a whole operating system to run on.
by unglaublich
0 subcomment
- Sure but in WASM, the browser's environment is taking responsibility for many OS concerns (graphics, IO, 3D, hardware). In a Docker image, all that logic needs to be bundled in libraries as you'll only get to "reuse" the hosts' kernel.
A 'fairer' comparison would be a optimized and compiled binary that dynamically links to the OS versus a WASM product (would be kilobytes-megabytes).
Or having the WASM app in a Chromium browser in Docker (would be gigabytes).
- Aren't Docker images deduplicated internally, so you'll only notice their size when you try to ship them?
- Amazing that the point of this article is that 35MB is small and everything else is bloated
- I feel like that ChatGPT suggested that comparison in the title
- I believe you can create this demo using webgl in less than 4kb.
- > Even a careful minimal build with uv lands at 282MB.
wtf.
Is there a cleanup tutorial somewhere?
- kkrieger enters the chat
by lofaszvanitt
0 subcomment
- Sigh, rounded corners everywhere, a bit tiring to be honest. UI is still in the 90s. And all those lifeless, soulless icons, bleeeh. Well, the pixel phone is still the contender for the decade's ugliest phone.
- [flagged]
- It usually doesn't matter how large a docker image is. Network is fast and disks are cheap (server disks are usually big enough, nobody specs a large server with 80gb ssd, 300-500gb is the realistic minimum).
If size and memory usage matters (large amount of small workloads) then it might make sense to optimize for size. Can also easily be done with docker (distroless or alpine base image)
Hacker News