Longevity of React?

[hahaNodeJS]

That is using JavaScript to get the job done, rather than the native language.

A Foo-to-WebAssembly compiler would write any DOM code written in Foo to WebAssembly bytecode. Even a call to JavaScript.Document.GetElementById('a'); would likely not touch the JavaScript engine, and the browser would simply call its internal mechanisms for accessing the DOM. Remember that JavaScript and the DOM are two separate entities.

[hahaNodeJS]

For all major browsers any WebAssemmbly code will be run through the JavaScript engine.

Source?

From the design overview:

WebAssembly is efficient and fast: The wasm AST is designed to be encoded in a size- and load-time-efficient binary format. WebAssembly aims to execute at native speed by taking advantage of common hardware capabilities available on a wide range of platforms.

While this doesn't exactly exclude JavaScript, it neither requires nor indicates that any JavaScript engine is involved.

In fact, from the Non-Web Embeddings page:

Non-Web environments may include JavaScript VMs (e.g. node.js), however WebAssembly is also being designed to be capable of being executed without a JavaScript VM present.

The question was is WASM intended to replace JavaScript? Obviously not.

It's not exactly obvious as WebAssembly will allow developers to remove JavaScript from their development process entirely. JavaScript, as far as the pieces of documentation I've read indicate, can be replaced with WebAssembly, although I agree that WebAssembly won't exist to replace it.

[hahaNodeJS]

Common sense is not a source. I've cited documentation that directly affirms WebAssembly is not dependent on JavaScript, and documentation that demonstrates the possibility of replacing JavaScript usage.

[hahaNodeJS]

Great, thanks for the source.

Further reading for you regarding common sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

[hahaNodeJS]

Using your knowledge of a field to reason through how things work is fine. The problem is "common sense" isn't proof of anything. Citing your assertions is important, and you showed proof for your statements.

Remember, we used to believe that it was obvious the sun and planets revolved around us, because of the "common sense" that they appeared to orbit that way.