4 ms·

Maybe you'll enjoy this: https://wasdk.github.io/WasmFiddle/ https://wasdk.github.io/WasmFiddle/

by hnarn 9y ago

TekMol 9y ago
That's funny. Never been using C, I guess-coded my way to this little program: int pow(a) { for (int i=0;i<10;i++) a=a*2+1; return a; } int main() { return pow(1); } And as far as I understand the output, the compiler on the server reduced it to a constant: (module (table 0 anyfunc) (memory $0 1) (export "memory" (memory $0)) (export "pow" (func $pow)) (export "main" (func $main)) (func $pow (param $0 i32) (result i32) (i32.or (i32.shl (get_local $0) (i32.const 10) ) (i32.const 1023) ) ) (func $main (result i32) (i32.const 2047) ) ) Looking at the wasm code, I really hate it that I cannot edit it by hand and have the browser execute it. That would be fun.
- banachtarski 9y ago
  The amount of vigor you espouse an opinion with is astounding relative to how little you know. The point of WASM isn't for you to hand-edit things. It's to provide a unified IR that many lanugages can target (C, C++, Rust being just the beginning). Any language that compiles to LLVM bytecode today can theoretically target the browser now. One thing those languages I mention have in common? They don't use a garbage collector. AKA, you can now write code that will run in the browser with predictable latency semantics. Then again, I could just be feeding a troll right now, I really can't tell.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Not having a GC is just an implementation detail. Anyone can implement one and ship it with the statically compiled WASM code, it is no different than targeting an actual machine code, unless we are speaking of CPUs like Intel iAPX 432. The only issue is having a little bigger download, which is irrelevant in the age where web pages to display static text are bigger than the whole Quake installation.
    - banachtarski 9y ago
      Yes I'm aware. It's a side-consequence that I just happened to single out. GC is opt-in, not mandatory. As for the bigger download, I'm hoping we'll be able to load libraries dynamically through WASM so you can cache things like the C runtime separately
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        Ah ok, sorry I thought it was another kind of remark relating GC just because the interoperability with JavaScript's GC is not yet baked into WASM. The idea of caching runtimes looks good, but we need some kind of versioning, otherwise it will be yet another WASM.so hell. Maybe tying them to the origin would be a possible solution.
- PyComfy 9y ago
  https://mbebenita.github.io/WasmExplorer/ https://mbebenita.github.io/WasmExplorer/ The popcnt example is nice.
- klibertp 9y ago
  But you can, of course! In the WasmFiddle, which I see for the first time in my life, if you put a `log(wasmCode)` on the right side, you'll see something like this printed: 0,97,115,109,1,0,0,0,1,138,128,128,128,0,2,96,1,127,1,127,96,0,1,127,3,131, .... 2047 You can edit this as you see fit, or even write it by hand if you want. What's wrong with it? It's the same with native programs. You get your executable, open it in the hex editor, do your thing and run the program, done. I'm not being entirely serious, but that's because you seem to conflate the tooling's features with the WA, or you simply don't understand what assembly really is. As a "child of the web" it's not strange, but you should at least accept your own lack of knowledge and understanding. In short: there are two programs involved in the WasmFiddle: a compiler and an assembler. You're saying you want to play with assembler - fair enough, you can do this. That you have to write a disasm for this or learn the opcodes by heart, doesn't mean it's impossible. The thing is, no one other than you cares (it's a lie - there are people with a justified, practical interest in this, but it's almost certain you're not one of them) because it's hard and the compiler is going to make a better job at it than you anyway. In other words, you're saying you don't like WebAssembly because it's an assembler. It's not a problem with WA, but with your expectations. EDIT: shortened assembly output to make the rest of the post readable.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    > or you simply don't understand what assembly really is As someone who at one point in his life had a lot of fun writing Z80 for his TI-83+, I do wonder how bit a "market" for a WASM environment oriented towards human editing of the assembly might be. It's probably being built anyway, for the compiler writers. The question is if it might "break out" to other enthusiasts. It's easy to forget that before higher level languages, assembly was the norm. Assembly at the time was more "human-friendly" to program in too; if you're comfy with C and pointers, going a bit lower really isn't that scary. It's just that the decades of x86 extensions have created hugely complicated beasts that few sane people would dare touch. However, the forty or so z80 opcodes are quick to memorise. I've heard that ARM and 68k is "fun" to work with too (for a certain type of programmer, obviously). Anyway, the s-expression form of WASM feels like a throwback to the more human friendly CPU days, presumably also because it has to be so platform-independent (and because SIMD isn't in yet). I'm sure there will be enthusiasts playing with it.

Maybe you'll enjoy this: https://wasdk.github.io/WasmFiddle/ https://wasdk.github.io/WasmFiddle/

by hnarn 9y ago

Maybe you'll enjoy this: https://wasdk.github.io/WasmFiddle/ https://wasdk.github.io/WasmFiddle/

That's funny. Never been using C, I guess-coded my way to this little program: int pow(a) { for (int i=0;i<10;i++) a=a*2+1; return a; } int main() { return pow(1); } And as far as I understand the output, the compiler on the server reduced it to a constant: (module (table 0 anyfunc) (memory $0 1) (export "memory" (memory $0)) (export "pow" (func $pow)) (export "main" (func $main)) (func $pow (param $0 i32) (result i32) (i32.or (i32.shl (get_local $0) (i32.const 10) ) (i32.const 1023) ) ) (func $main (result i32) (i32.const 2047) ) ) Looking at the wasm code, I really hate it that I cannot edit it by hand and have the browser execute it. That would be fun.

banachtarski 9y ago
The amount of vigor you espouse an opinion with is astounding relative to how little you know. The point of WASM isn't for you to hand-edit things. It's to provide a unified IR that many lanugages can target (C, C++, Rust being just the beginning). Any language that compiles to LLVM bytecode today can theoretically target the browser now. One thing those languages I mention have in common? They don't use a garbage collector. AKA, you can now write code that will run in the browser with predictable latency semantics. Then again, I could just be feeding a troll right now, I really can't tell.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Not having a GC is just an implementation detail. Anyone can implement one and ship it with the statically compiled WASM code, it is no different than targeting an actual machine code, unless we are speaking of CPUs like Intel iAPX 432. The only issue is having a little bigger download, which is irrelevant in the age where web pages to display static text are bigger than the whole Quake installation.
  - banachtarski 9y ago
    Yes I'm aware. It's a side-consequence that I just happened to single out. GC is opt-in, not mandatory. As for the bigger download, I'm hoping we'll be able to load libraries dynamically through WASM so you can cache things like the C runtime separately
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Ah ok, sorry I thought it was another kind of remark relating GC just because the interoperability with JavaScript's GC is not yet baked into WASM. The idea of caching runtimes looks good, but we need some kind of versioning, otherwise it will be yet another WASM.so hell. Maybe tying them to the origin would be a possible solution.
PyComfy 9y ago
https://mbebenita.github.io/WasmExplorer/ https://mbebenita.github.io/WasmExplorer/ The popcnt example is nice.
klibertp 9y ago
But you can, of course! In the WasmFiddle, which I see for the first time in my life, if you put a `log(wasmCode)` on the right side, you'll see something like this printed: 0,97,115,109,1,0,0,0,1,138,128,128,128,0,2,96,1,127,1,127,96,0,1,127,3,131, .... 2047 You can edit this as you see fit, or even write it by hand if you want. What's wrong with it? It's the same with native programs. You get your executable, open it in the hex editor, do your thing and run the program, done. I'm not being entirely serious, but that's because you seem to conflate the tooling's features with the WA, or you simply don't understand what assembly really is. As a "child of the web" it's not strange, but you should at least accept your own lack of knowledge and understanding. In short: there are two programs involved in the WasmFiddle: a compiler and an assembler. You're saying you want to play with assembler - fair enough, you can do this. That you have to write a disasm for this or learn the opcodes by heart, doesn't mean it's impossible. The thing is, no one other than you cares (it's a lie - there are people with a justified, practical interest in this, but it's almost certain you're not one of them) because it's hard and the compiler is going to make a better job at it than you anyway. In other words, you're saying you don't like WebAssembly because it's an assembler. It's not a problem with WA, but with your expectations. EDIT: shortened assembly output to make the rest of the post readable.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > or you simply don't understand what assembly really is As someone who at one point in his life had a lot of fun writing Z80 for his TI-83+, I do wonder how bit a "market" for a WASM environment oriented towards human editing of the assembly might be. It's probably being built anyway, for the compiler writers. The question is if it might "break out" to other enthusiasts. It's easy to forget that before higher level languages, assembly was the norm. Assembly at the time was more "human-friendly" to program in too; if you're comfy with C and pointers, going a bit lower really isn't that scary. It's just that the decades of x86 extensions have created hugely complicated beasts that few sane people would dare touch. However, the forty or so z80 opcodes are quick to memorise. I've heard that ARM and 68k is "fun" to work with too (for a certain type of programmer, obviously). Anyway, the s-expression form of WASM feels like a throwback to the more human friendly CPU days, presumably also because it has to be so platform-independent (and because SIMD isn't in yet). I'm sure there will be enthusiasts playing with it.