7 ms·

> "The Amsterdam Compiler Kit (ACK) is a retargetable compiler suite. It has frontends for the following programming languages: C, Pascal, Modula-2, Occam, and

> "The Amsterdam Compiler Kit (ACK) is a retargetable compiler suite. It has frontends for the following programming languages: C, Pascal, Modula-2, Occam, and BASIC." All those languages have only plain data and functions, no OOP. So it's just a C-like FFI all over again. It does not matter whether it's a bytecode or native code: instruction set is a totally separate thing from the component model. > There are already nearly two dozen languages being developed for Visual Studio .NET ... that can only be used from .NET. And that's the point about the absence of universality. Well, you can export functions (DllExport). However, it would be just a plain FFI.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 4y ago
And the difference from WASM is .....?
- garganzol 4y ago
  WASM is a runtime only. It does not try to define a component model. And that's a bonus for its wider appeal and adoption. You can treat WASM just like you treat a CPU architecture. One among many. It does its thing and does it reasonably well (official 64 bit support would be awesome though). But trying to tie a component model to a specific CPU is kind of a bad idea, don't you think so? For me it causes immediate Intel iAPX 432 vibes and I fear that WASM may diverge in that utopian direction some day.
  - tempodox 4y ago
    > WASM is a runtime only. It does not try to define a component model. This GitHub page seems to contradict that: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/design/high-level/Goals.md https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/des...
    - garganzol 4y ago
      That page seems to seed wrongful directions without understanding their true consequences. This may render WASM as another Macromedia Flash of its time if those aspirations materialize.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        Those wheels are already set in motion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phodPLY8zNE&list=PLj6h78yzYM2PzLhPvZIihwPShNuXP01C5&index=2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phodPLY8zNE&list=PLj6h78yzYM...
        tempodox 4y ago
        Interesting talk. The “parametric linking” is just how parameterized modules (“functors”) work in OCaml. I like it.
        garganzol 4y ago
        I watched it. It gave me CORBA 3.0 moments. My conclusion: such opinionated things cannot survive for too long.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Ah, that is gRPC.... Or is it WinRT? Maybe Apple's XPC. Or could it be Android Binder, or Fucshia IDL?
        garganzol 4y ago
        The problem is that we cannot agree on a component model. All existing variants are too opinionated for one reason or another.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    The hardware architecture role belongs to the AOT/JIT compiler used by the WASM infrastructure, so the difference being?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    You don't have to use the component model in CLR. And if you do not, the remaining subset is basically just as expressive as wasm - you can compile C to it, for example. It's "just like a CPU architecture". And then you can build your own component models on top of that, or FFI with existing ones (I had to do this with COM once instead of using COM Interop - it was all hand-rolled with structs etc).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pjmlp 4y ago

And the difference from WASM is .....?

garganzol 4y ago
WASM is a runtime only. It does not try to define a component model. And that's a bonus for its wider appeal and adoption. You can treat WASM just like you treat a CPU architecture. One among many. It does its thing and does it reasonably well (official 64 bit support would be awesome though). But trying to tie a component model to a specific CPU is kind of a bad idea, don't you think so? For me it causes immediate Intel iAPX 432 vibes and I fear that WASM may diverge in that utopian direction some day.
- tempodox 4y ago
  > WASM is a runtime only. It does not try to define a component model. This GitHub page seems to contradict that: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/design/high-level/Goals.md https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/des...
  - garganzol 4y ago
    That page seems to seed wrongful directions without understanding their true consequences. This may render WASM as another Macromedia Flash of its time if those aspirations materialize.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Those wheels are already set in motion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phodPLY8zNE&list=PLj6h78yzYM2PzLhPvZIihwPShNuXP01C5&index=2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phodPLY8zNE&list=PLj6h78yzYM...
      - tempodox 4y ago
        Interesting talk. The “parametric linking” is just how parameterized modules (“functors”) work in OCaml. I like it.
      - garganzol 4y ago
        I watched it. It gave me CORBA 3.0 moments. My conclusion: such opinionated things cannot survive for too long.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Ah, that is gRPC.... Or is it WinRT? Maybe Apple's XPC. Or could it be Android Binder, or Fucshia IDL?
        garganzol 4y ago
        The problem is that we cannot agree on a component model. All existing variants are too opinionated for one reason or another.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  The hardware architecture role belongs to the AOT/JIT compiler used by the WASM infrastructure, so the difference being?
- int_19h 4y ago
  You don't have to use the component model in CLR. And if you do not, the remaining subset is basically just as expressive as wasm - you can compile C to it, for example. It's "just like a CPU architecture". And then you can build your own component models on top of that, or FFI with existing ones (I had to do this with COM once instead of using COM Interop - it was all hand-rolled with structs etc).