4 ms·
This is definitely my biggest issue at the moment. I understand the intent is to make it easy to port software to support it but I dislike the method none-the-l
by jacoblambda 5y ago
This is definitely my biggest issue at the moment. I understand the intent is to make it easy to port software to support it but I dislike the method none-the-less.
I'd much prefer they provide a constrained environment and dedicated compilers (or compiler extensions). At least that way the code can be sandboxed in such a way that you don't have to worry about what it's actually doing.
Honestly with the types of tasks they are targetting, a purely functional or algorithmic language requirement would serve them well. For example, I would be far more comfortable if they were using something like [Halide](https://halide-lang.org/ https://halide-lang.org/) with some static analysis to deny any low level fuckery. At least that way the providers could have a reasonable assurance that they aren't going to accidentally unleash some malicious code onto their system.
- AgentME 5y agoThey support WASM-based workloads that are inherently very sandboxed by design (and have other benefits like being architecture agnostic).