4 ms·

The benchmark seems to use only browsers' built in VMs to run WebAssembly (more like the the efficiency of different VM JIT compilers compared to native). How a

The benchmark seems to use only browsers' built in VMs to run WebAssembly (more like the the efficiency of different VM JIT compilers compared to native). How about running them in standalone webassembly VM like WAVM (it does more aggressive optimization, use LLVM for JIT), Asmble (running in JVM), or Wasmer (use Cranelift like Firefox does, maybe a little bit faster than Firefox) (I just skimmed the paper, sorry if i miss something)

est31 8y ago
> use Cranelift like Firefox does To my knowledge, Cranelift in Firefox is still disabled by default. https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/modules/libpref/init/all.js#1483 https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/modules/libpref...
jacobolus 8y ago
Speed when running in the browser is probably the main practical concern for most folks using wasm....
- derefr 8y ago
  Some projects are looking forward to using WASM as a general replacement for their current Turing-complete query language engine (e.g. Javascript in CouchDB, Lua in Redis, etc.) WAVM is probably what such systems would embed.
- inDigiNeous 8y ago
  That and distribution of applications without having to provide the source, although currently you can of course minimize and compile the source, but still it's much more readable than an actual assembly -output.
kodablah 8y ago
A post a month ago benchmarked a couple of those you mentioned: https://medium.com/fluence-labs/a-standalone-webassembly-vm-benchmark-7a0f701da3d5 https://medium.com/fluence-labs/a-standalone-webassembly-vm-...