WebAssembly applications

WebAssembly (Wasm) is a low-level binary format that executes in the browser with near-native performance. It lets you run code written in C, C++, Rust and other languages on the web by compiling it to Wasm. It is used for compute-heavy tasks: image/video/audio processing, 3D and games, scientific computation and simulations, CAD/engineering tools, cryptography, porting existing desktop libraries to the browser. Honestly about 'for compute-heavy tasks', this is key: Wasm gives a gain precisely where there is heavy computation that hits JavaScript's speed limits. For a regular web UI (forms, content, navigation, typical logic) JavaScript is simpler, more familiar and more than fast enough — Wasm is not needed there and will only add complexity. Applying Wasm 'for site speed' in general is a misconception. We will honestly assess whether you have a real computational task for Wasm. Honestly about complexity and the team: Wasm development is harder than regular web development — it needs competence in the source language (C/C++/Rust), building to Wasm, debugging binary code, integrating with the web part. There are fewer specialists. It is serious engineering work. Honestly about size and the JS/DOM 'bridge': Wasm modules can be heavy (increased loading), and Wasm has no direct DOM access — interaction with the interface goes through a JavaScript 'bridge', and frequent JS↔Wasm transitions have overhead. For small tasks this overhead can eat the gain. Wasm is good for large computational blocks, not micro-operations. Honestly about 'not a magic speed-up': Wasm speeds up heavy computation but does not make a regular site, the network, rendering or poorly written logic faster. It is a tool for a specific class of tasks. Honestly about the effect: for resource-intensive browser tasks it gives near-native speed, but it is complex specialized development, not justified for everyone. Honestly about access: a real computational task, a team with the needed languages are needed. An important boundary: this is Wasm; WebGL/WebGPU (graphics) — 1056; regular web development — other sections. Picture this: instead of 'heavy computation lagging in JS' — near-native performance in the browser where it is genuinely needed. The base price starts from 90,000 ₽ (depends on the task and language).

• Heavy computation in the browser lags on pure JavaScript.
• An existing C/C++/Rust library needs porting to the web.
• You want Wasm 'for speed' but there is no real computational task.
• Wasm was applied to small operations — the 'bridge' overhead ate the gain.

• WebAssembly development for a real computational task
• An honest assessment: is there a Wasm task or is JS enough
• Compilation from C/C++/Rust and integration via a JS 'bridge'
• Accounting for module size and JS↔Wasm overhead
• Honest boundaries (for heavy computation; excessive for a typical UI; not a magic speed-up)
• A link with WebGL/WebGPU (1056) for graphics
• Optimization and a maintenance plan
• Handover and review with you

• Near-native performance for resource-intensive in-browser tasks
• Porting existing C/C++/Rust code to the web
• An honest assessment: is there a real Wasm task
• Honest boundaries (for heavy computation; not for a regular site; no general-speed guarantee)

• We assess whether there is a real computational task for Wasm
• If yes — we compile and integrate via a JS bridge, optimize
• If not — we honestly recommend JS, set boundaries with you

• Will WebAssembly speed up my site?

  A regular site — no, honestly: Wasm speeds up heavy COMPUTATION that hits JS's speed limits (media processing, games, simulations) but does not make a regular interface, the network, rendering or the site overall faster. For a typical web UI JavaScript is simpler and more than fast enough. Applying Wasm 'for site speed in general' is a misconception. We apply it only where there is a real computational task.

• Can the entire frontend be made in Wasm?

  Technically yes, but usually unnecessary and unprofitable, honestly: Wasm has no direct DOM access — interaction with the interface goes through a JavaScript 'bridge' with overhead, and modules can be heavy. For a regular UI this is harder and not faster than JS. Wasm is good for large computational blocks inside an app, not as a replacement for the whole frontend. We honestly separate what to put in Wasm and what to keep in JS.

• Will Wasm suit small speed-ups here and there?

  More often no, honestly: frequent JavaScript↔Wasm transitions have overhead, and for small operations this overhead can eat the entire gain (or even make it slower). Wasm is justified for large, isolated computational tasks, not for micro-optimizations everywhere. We will honestly assess whether Wasm pays off for your specific task rather than slap it on 'for speed' everywhere.