5 ms·

By same logic why use containers ? You can just ship VM images. It's basically the same thing as using a language runtime vs using a generic container for Lamb

By same logic why use containers ? You can just ship VM images. It's basically the same thing as using a language runtime vs using a generic container for Lambda, except WASM would be lower level (you would need to ship language runtime on top of WASM but that's probably order of magnitude less overhead than a container) Containers feel like a clever hack to get existing apps packaged up and reduce the overhead of VMs, but I'd much rather deploy runtime/app code only.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
Really? VM images take longer to spin up, both at the infra level and the devex level
- moonchrome 3y ago
  Just like docker image vs specialized language runtime ?
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    Sure, but for many langs hermetic config is an issue, you want to be relatively sure what your devs are building against is what gets deployed.
    - moonchrome 3y ago
      So you'll develop directly on the wasm runtime locally which should be a platform abstraction ? The way I see it VM -> Containers -> WASM is a logical progression in the same direction from the perspective of deploying applications.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwawaymaths 3y ago
        I mean i don't think you get it. Wasm doesn't ship with a filesystem, POSIX support tools, etc. You only get your language runtime, so they're not comparable. Bare metal, VM, and containers all "look the same", like from a UX perspective. Wasm does not.
        moonchrome 3y ago
        That's solved by WASI which is like POSIX of WASM. Nobody is arguing that WASM today will replace containers - 2030 is a long time away in tech.
        throwawaymaths 3y ago
        Wasi is POSIX but not like filesystem, ls, cat, etc.
        syrusakbary 3y ago
        WASI is not POSIX. WASIX is POSIX :) https://wasix.org https://wasix.org
        throwawaymaths 3y ago
        I though wasi recently voted to add POSIX in officially
lolinder 3y ago
> Containers feel like a clever hack to get existing apps packaged up and reduce the overhead of VMs That's because that's exactly what they are, and that's why this claim is weird. Containers do not solve the same problem as WASM. No one is going to be taking Postgres and compiling it to WASM. They're not going to do that for redis or memcached or any of the other innumerable services that live happily inside of a container and need low-level access to a Unix system. We may very well find that WASM replaces containers as to go to for bundling a typical web app, especially one built with a compiled language rather than one that already has a runtime. But we will still use containers for the things that containers are good at.
- moonchrome 3y ago
  I'd argue containers aren't that good at databases or caches (production ones anyway, fine for development) and containers are specifically targeted at app deployments. Containers just add overhead for stuff like memcached and complicate database management.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    That's a reasonable argument to make (although I think it depends on the context), but I see no reason to believe WASM would be any better. And the fact remains that a lot of people do use containers quite successfully for these things. I don't believe those same people would turn to WASM.
- brendank310 3y ago
  Someone already did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32498435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32498435 Overall the timeline doesn't seem implausible to me.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Okay, I'll amend my statement: no one should be using a WASM-powered Postgres as their production DB. Right now compiling to WASM is sort of the equivalent of "but will it run Doom?" People are doing it for everything, and it's a fun experiment to stretch WASM. I could see it being useful in making some things available in the browser that otherwise couldn't be. But that doesn't mean it's going to replace containers in their rightful place. It'll be another option, and unless you're trying to solve one of the few problems that WASM was designed to solve (like running in the browser), it will be the wrong one.
paulddraper 3y ago
> why use containers ? You can just ship VM images. Lower overhead. > clever hack to get existing apps packaged up and reduce the overhead of VMs Yeah, exactly.
- moonchrome 3y ago
  But my point is that WASM is the same thing in comparison to images - lighter weight environment for deploying applications.

throwawaymaths 3y ago

Really? VM images take longer to spin up, both at the infra level and the devex level

moonchrome 3y ago
Just like docker image vs specialized language runtime ?
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Sure, but for many langs hermetic config is an issue, you want to be relatively sure what your devs are building against is what gets deployed.
  - moonchrome 3y ago
    So you'll develop directly on the wasm runtime locally which should be a platform abstraction ? The way I see it VM -> Containers -> WASM is a logical progression in the same direction from the perspective of deploying applications.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      I mean i don't think you get it. Wasm doesn't ship with a filesystem, POSIX support tools, etc. You only get your language runtime, so they're not comparable. Bare metal, VM, and containers all "look the same", like from a UX perspective. Wasm does not.
      - moonchrome 3y ago
        That's solved by WASI which is like POSIX of WASM. Nobody is arguing that WASM today will replace containers - 2030 is a long time away in tech.
        throwawaymaths 3y ago
        Wasi is POSIX but not like filesystem, ls, cat, etc.
        syrusakbary 3y ago
        WASI is not POSIX. WASIX is POSIX :) https://wasix.org https://wasix.org
        throwawaymaths 3y ago
        I though wasi recently voted to add POSIX in officially

lolinder 3y ago

> Containers feel like a clever hack to get existing apps packaged up and reduce the overhead of VMs That's because that's exactly what they are, and that's why this claim is weird. Containers do not solve the same problem as WASM. No one is going to be taking Postgres and compiling it to WASM. They're not going to do that for redis or memcached or any of the other innumerable services that live happily inside of a container and need low-level access to a Unix system. We may very well find that WASM replaces containers as to go to for bundling a typical web app, especially one built with a compiled language rather than one that already has a runtime. But we will still use containers for the things that containers are good at.

moonchrome 3y ago
I'd argue containers aren't that good at databases or caches (production ones anyway, fine for development) and containers are specifically targeted at app deployments. Containers just add overhead for stuff like memcached and complicate database management.
- lolinder 3y ago
  That's a reasonable argument to make (although I think it depends on the context), but I see no reason to believe WASM would be any better. And the fact remains that a lot of people do use containers quite successfully for these things. I don't believe those same people would turn to WASM.
brendank310 3y ago
Someone already did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32498435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32498435 Overall the timeline doesn't seem implausible to me.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Okay, I'll amend my statement: no one should be using a WASM-powered Postgres as their production DB. Right now compiling to WASM is sort of the equivalent of "but will it run Doom?" People are doing it for everything, and it's a fun experiment to stretch WASM. I could see it being useful in making some things available in the browser that otherwise couldn't be. But that doesn't mean it's going to replace containers in their rightful place. It'll be another option, and unless you're trying to solve one of the few problems that WASM was designed to solve (like running in the browser), it will be the wrong one.

paulddraper 3y ago

> why use containers ? You can just ship VM images. Lower overhead. > clever hack to get existing apps packaged up and reduce the overhead of VMs Yeah, exactly.

moonchrome 3y ago
But my point is that WASM is the same thing in comparison to images - lighter weight environment for deploying applications.