Just recently I've compiled my side-project Rust game engine to WASM and it runs beautifully in the browser, as well as SSH2 to have a fully featured SSH implementation in the browser over a websocket transport.
replyIt can obviously do amazing things, but the expectation for it to do replace webdev frontend code was always a huge misconception. Though recent developments have made DOM access without a JavaScript translation layer possible, so that might change!
I'd say the hype is still very much alive.
There used to be hype about Wasm, now it's a technology as any other. It's still used, and used a lot; it just doesn't get focused on as much.
replyWell there is Google Sheets, Microsoft Office, Figma, and some other heavier web apps.
replyLooks like you're getting down voted, but the folks at Mozilla seem like they agree and are working towards making WASM more first class in the browser: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/02/making-webassembly-a-first...
replyThat's specifically about string-marshalling overhead, which is only a problem when trying to talk to the DOM from the WASM side (which arguably is a silly idea to begin with, but to each their own I guess).
replyThe only failure of WASM is that it was overhyped beyond all reason. It's "just another" virtual instruction set, and for that it turned out pretty great. It's supported by Clang and by all browsers. That's already enough to make the whole idea work.
replyYou don't hear much about it because for the people using it, web+wasm is "just another porting target", like Windows, macOS or Linux. WASM has become 'normal' and that's a good thing.
The main risk these days for WASM is feature creep, the spec is getting bloated with optional features (garbage collection etc...).