JVM wasn’t just for Java developers (Kotlin, Clojure, Ruby could compile to it); but it was easiest for Java, and other languages didn’t elect to build on the J

JVM wasn’t just for Java developers (Kotlin, Clojure, Ruby could compile to it); but it was easiest for Java, and other languages didn’t elect to build on the JVM interface by default, rather adopting POSIX (and either a custom bytecode or assembly) as the interface. WASM likely won’t convince all languages to switch to its bytecode by default. Its adoption story requires enough people to maintain this non-standard compilation pipeline. Which is fine, but beyond the bytecode, the productivity will only be maintained if it offers an equal or superior interface to POSIX. Right now, WASI is not it. A lot of basic elements are experimental, like file seek, multi-process, threads, SIMD, GPU programming… People will believe the hype, miss the caveats, use it at work, and have their project fail. Companies will blacklist the technology. In my mind, it is too early for them to be so publicly dithyrambic. All WASM publications should link to a page that details all WASI features that are still experimental.