NaCL was further along in every meaningful dimension (the ability to run native software at native speeds) after a year or two of development, than WASM is today after a decade (and I think this will be true a decade from now).

So the upside of WASM according to you, is that it got greenlit by the standards committee chaired by companies whose business model would've been hurt the most by a competent in-browser sandbox.

For example, the Epic-Apple Fortnite battle couldn't even have happened. Epic would've shipped it on NaCL and users would've been just as happy, and Apple (or Google) would've had no way of enforcing their sandox.

Whew, thankfully we've been saved from that terrible fate of getting to publish and enjoy software without gatekeepers and appstores.

At least I hope you have something to gain from your opinion, as the rest of us certainly lost out.

PNaCL was published with a standard and tooling, it was Mozzilla that refused to adopt it, and push asm.js instead.

Ironically, if it was today, Google could have pushed PNaCL without any problem.