It seems you wrote this article; have you read it back? You bury the lede under 1230 words explaining some social concepts rather than anything programming-related.
Additionally, you use many complex words to describe simple subjects. And you do this knowingly: for example, you felt the need to link the definition of "acquiescence" to the word. If you felt that it was complex enough that this was warranted, why not instead rewrite the surrounding content?
If the purpose of this article is to convince people that disagree with your statements, you have certainly lost those people by the end of the article.
I don't even disagree with you; the DOM is great and WASM is definitely just another option and not a replacement for JS.
Finally, I have to note: there aren't any citations for your claims in the programming section. One might otherwise wonder where you get an idea like
> That DOM mechanism will allow a WASM application to execute DOM methods without having to provide its own DOM application, but it will be limited to markup within the WASM application.
when I haven't been able to find anything indicating this elsewhere on the web.
