4 ms·

> It is as if a newer generation never bothered to learn about what came before. Why the pessimistic take? Maybe the newer generations improved upon what came

• pjmlp 4y ago
  Sure, but then don't talk about the "new" stuff as if it was the best invention since sliced bread, without any clue that Egypitans, Babylons, Romans and ancient Greeks were already having it.
• kaba0 4y ago
  All too often they didn’t even know about these systems, at least in my (limited) experience. Not necessarily true here, but it’s not like NIH/reinventing the wheel isn’t common in certain parts of the industry.
  • flohofwoe 4y ago
    AFAIK the most important difference between WASM and other VMs on the level of CLR or JVM is that WASM has a simple linear memory model, which allows languages which expect a linear heap (like C, C++, Rust, ...) to be supported by just adding new backends to existing compilers (and most importantly without requiring changes to the language). The CLR and JVM might be able to simulate a linear heap through a byte array (just like asm.js did), but it's questionable whether this allows the same performance as WASM when the whole VM instruction set is built around high level object references.
    • pjmlp 4y ago
      CLR doesn't need to simulate anything, its bytecode is expressive enough for languages like C and C++.