You're mistaking written standard for implimentation standard. You only need a standard in practice. All of those things you've listed have only a few big play

You're mistaking written standard for implimentation standard. You only need a standard in practice. All of those things you've listed have only a few big players, with enough use and feedback cycle that there can be multiple different implimentations. Those different implimentations are very similar. There is not a different C to compilers, they have their own quirks, benefits, and target different systems. JavaScript is the least selective of any language, you will only find runtimes for it's modern versions in browsers Typically V8 or safari. V8 has become the effective standard. SQL has multiple big implimentations that deviate completely. This has a lot to do with marketing, and the fact data storage/retrieval is a significantly diverse section of computer science. In each of these known technologies there is a well known, well backed, named software project that people use it's name synonymous with it's supposed standard. Wasm doesn't have this, and that's because the implimentations took place in browser, which afaik did not impliment a unique engine to it. It just integrates wasm instructions to their js instructions. Which then led to there being dozens of different self called 'safe' implimentations. None of these have the users, time, and open source community necessary to know this. Which will inevitably lead to exploits. Given that situation, the only way wasm is going to live up to its goal of safety is backing a well made runtime. The problem of safety is what makes this very different from other software. Your own code with bugs is an annoyance, and maybe you can't do what you wanted. But code that is meant to be safe that instead allows for damage to you, your company - that deserves a much higher level of scrutiny.