"Why not Rust?" is a question I ask about game development a lot these days.

I'm an engineer with a decade of experience as a web services engineer, and 5 years of game development engineering. Rust seems like the right direction for game developers -- safer code, faster compile times, more portable binaries.

Ambient looks very cool, but I had some questions --

1) WebAssembly, but no native web player? One of the most powerful things a game dev can do is provide a link to a game and just let people play it on itch or other space. Having a binary you have to download to play is a major turn off for small time games. It looks like it's on the roadmap, but without a clear target?

2) No editor/tooling yet? What's the plan for a unity-like editor interface? How do non-developers (designers, artists, audio folks) interact with a game made with ambient? Is that in the plans for the future? Could you expand on it a bit more?

3) Sustainability? A five person crew working on a free product, how do you plan on monetizing it?

4) Single executable? One concern that jumps out right away is the single executable for server and client. Often in multiplayer games you want to avoid shipping server binaries (for cheat protection, for instance, or to avoid the cost of deploying a large client to a headless server environment). Are there plans to provide the ability to separate client and server builds?

5) HTML for front end? Games are increasingly moving to HTML to power their UI. Given you are already using WebAssembly, it seems like it wouldn't be that far off to enable an interface so that UI could be handled in JS/HTML. (Yes, this is performant enough for games. Yes, it's being done in AAA games. No, you aren't the first commenter who thinks that UI shouldn't be done in HTML. No, I'm not interested in hearing complaints about it.)

Nevertheless, this looks neat,