3 ms·

In addition to the other commenter mentioning it will use the JS GC of the browser for #2 (which has tons of manpower behind), the issue with #4 is that you wou

In addition to the other commenter mentioning it will use the JS GC of the browser for #2 (which has tons of manpower behind), the issue with #4 is that you would need threads w/ shared memory [1] which seems as far out as a native GC. Also, for #3, it's not "unnecessary" for a multitude of developers and languages. Web development without (at least optional) GC is going the wrong direction. 1 - https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/104 https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/104

ethbro 11y ago
Not to mention the horror of inventing and deploying an efficient binary packed web execution format, only to slow things down even further in 5 years by seeing webpages load myGC_v1.2.5 + myGC_v1.3.1 + nuGC_v2.1.3 etc etc
- amelius 11y ago
  This can be approached the same way as shared binaries. Just load the relevant libraries once, then cache.
amelius 11y ago
> which has tons of manpower behind What is wrong with open-sourcing GC code as independent libraries, so that web-app makers or (more likely) compiler developers (with less skill/time) can use them at will? > the issue with #4 is that you would need threads w/ shared memory But this is exactly what we need for other applications as well. For example, how would you send a large immutable data-structure across two threads? By copying it? Of course not, you just share pointers, meaning that the address space should be shared. If this is not possible, then that is a major flaw in WASM's design. I think you have the impression that incorporating a GC into WASM makes life easier. But it doesn't. It is the exact opposite. WASM should be as simple as possible.
- wtetzner 11y ago
  I think the value in having a standardized GC is simpler interop between wasm languages. There's nothing that would prevent writing your own GC if you felt the need.
- kodablah 11y ago
  It would be fine if it was an independent library. I am not under the impression of incorporating a GC into WASM makes life easier. I am under the impression that having a GC available makes life easier. To think that you can magically recompile the existing GC's that V8 or WhateverMonkey are using to WASM is naive. Exposing the ability to request memory, add roots, and handle weak references, etc will make it more usable. Waiting until WASM has the ability to do threaded memory management at the same level as the existing GCs and have them rewritten (or refactored) for it may be too long. I would also support a polyfill approach where a GC shared-lib-sort of interface is exposed and tied to existing implementations at first to keep it out of WASM.
  - amelius 11y ago
    > To think that you can magically recompile the existing GC's that V8 or WhateverMonkey are using to WASM is naive. I don't think it is. What I would like to see is that compiler writers keep control over their GC. > Waiting until WASM has the ability to do threaded memory management at the same level as the existing GCs and have them rewritten (or refactored) for it may be too long. I don't see the big problems. We already have assembly without GCs, and it is called VirtualBox (or VMWare). Why not use something like that? (Yes, there are still some security issues, but these can be solved much easier than when the hairy GC code becomes part of the game). In other words, let's first create a real assembly language with a simple but adequate instruction set, and make it secure. This is what I would call "assembly language" anyway.

ethbro 11y ago

Not to mention the horror of inventing and deploying an efficient binary packed web execution format, only to slow things down even further in 5 years by seeing webpages load myGC_v1.2.5 + myGC_v1.3.1 + nuGC_v2.1.3 etc etc

amelius 11y ago
This can be approached the same way as shared binaries. Just load the relevant libraries once, then cache.

amelius 11y ago

> which has tons of manpower behind What is wrong with open-sourcing GC code as independent libraries, so that web-app makers or (more likely) compiler developers (with less skill/time) can use them at will? > the issue with #4 is that you would need threads w/ shared memory But this is exactly what we need for other applications as well. For example, how would you send a large immutable data-structure across two threads? By copying it? Of course not, you just share pointers, meaning that the address space should be shared. If this is not possible, then that is a major flaw in WASM's design. I think you have the impression that incorporating a GC into WASM makes life easier. But it doesn't. It is the exact opposite. WASM should be as simple as possible.

wtetzner 11y ago
I think the value in having a standardized GC is simpler interop between wasm languages. There's nothing that would prevent writing your own GC if you felt the need.
kodablah 11y ago
It would be fine if it was an independent library. I am not under the impression of incorporating a GC into WASM makes life easier. I am under the impression that having a GC available makes life easier. To think that you can magically recompile the existing GC's that V8 or WhateverMonkey are using to WASM is naive. Exposing the ability to request memory, add roots, and handle weak references, etc will make it more usable. Waiting until WASM has the ability to do threaded memory management at the same level as the existing GCs and have them rewritten (or refactored) for it may be too long. I would also support a polyfill approach where a GC shared-lib-sort of interface is exposed and tied to existing implementations at first to keep it out of WASM.
- amelius 11y ago
  > To think that you can magically recompile the existing GC's that V8 or WhateverMonkey are using to WASM is naive. I don't think it is. What I would like to see is that compiler writers keep control over their GC. > Waiting until WASM has the ability to do threaded memory management at the same level as the existing GCs and have them rewritten (or refactored) for it may be too long. I don't see the big problems. We already have assembly without GCs, and it is called VirtualBox (or VMWare). Why not use something like that? (Yes, there are still some security issues, but these can be solved much easier than when the hairy GC code becomes part of the game). In other words, let's first create a real assembly language with a simple but adequate instruction set, and make it secure. This is what I would call "assembly language" anyway.