mediacapture-record VS assemblyscript

Courtesy of this GitHub thread, my currently working, but very inconvenient strategy to capture the video is to use mediaCapture(0) on the canvas element with MediaStreamTrackProcessor to pipe frames into WebM muxer from a package called webm-muxer.

WebRTC's RTCRtpSender.replaceTrack() method achieves "seamless" replacement of a MediaStreamTrack. I proposed the same be added to MediaRecorder, see Add replaceTrack method to MediaRecorder., Add replaceStream to MediaRecorder.

I guess this could be used to remux the broken files that are spitted by the MediaRecorder API, which have missing metadata that prevents from seeking and thus far has been ignored / sweeped away in Chrome [1], Firefox [2], and even the standard itself [3], which ignored in its design the basic fact that encoding any file should include a "closing" stage (where metadata is written) before yielding it as a finished file.

[1]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=642012

[2]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1283464

[3]: https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-record/issues/119

Incidentally, it’s also what AssemblyScript uses: https://github.com/AssemblyScript/assemblyscript/blob/main/s...

Use it as a Front-End for other low-level languages.

> MHO typescript could just cut loose from its javascript compatibility. Why not compile it to wasm instead of transpiling it to javascript?

Check out AssemblyScript which is exactly that:

https://www.assemblyscript.org/

If you're curious, check out AssemblyScript, that might describe better what needs to be cut from TypeScript to make it possible to be compiled to WASM.

This is kinda the idea behind AssemblyScript, but IIRC it's more of a low-level typescript-ish syntax for WebAssembly.

https://www.assemblyscript.org/ maybe, but I'm not sure exactly what you need.

Exactly, WASM was designed to be very very lightweight... you can put a lot of logic into a very small amount of WASM, but you need a good compiler to do that, or write WASM by hand to really feel the benefit. If you just compile Go to WASM, with its GC, runtime and stdlib included in the binary, yeah it's going to be pretty heavy... Rust doesn't have a runtime but as you said, for some reason, produces relatively large binaries (not the case only in WASM by the way). Probably, the best ways to create small WASM binaries is to compile from C or from a WASM-native language like AssemblySCript (https://www.assemblyscript.org).

Well we have all the new ECMA standards that will be introduced in 5 years now. It's looking more like Java actually. its accessor and typing patterns match it the most. TypeScript has had quite the profound influence over future ECMA design. There is a not so well known project called AssemblyScript which I think has a promising future. Since future ecma standards closely resembles it and TypeScripts popularity has exploded I have a feeling it may become a real standard as well.

If you can guarantee that Typescript type hints will always be followed, you can turn it into more optimised code. Unfortunately, this means you've got to break Javascript semantics, so this means creating a new language, but people have done it. For example, AssemblyScript is a language that is designed as a strict subset of Typescript that compiles directly down to WebAssembly instead of Javascript, producing much more efficient code (most of the time). The tradeoff is that it has some slightly different semantics to Javascript, which means your existing codebase — and most of the libraries you use — will probably require some adaption before running correctly in AssemblyScript.