3 ms·

WASI is kind of in a hard place now There is the version 1 which is not allowed to continue for political reasons (and that’s the one that everyone is impleme

WASI is kind of in a hard place now There is the version 1 which is not allowed to continue for political reasons (and that’s the one that everyone is implementing because it actually works) and there is version 2 that redoes everything from 0. Also there is wasix from an entirely different team that builds on top of version 1

jeffparsons 3y ago
> version 1 You mean preview 1? It was never meant to be a finished spec that would remain supported long-term; it was a preview for early adopters and people working in the space to experiment with. > allowed to continue for political reasons Uh... what?
- yankput 3y ago
  There is no development on the preview 1; and the new development went in new direction so the preview1 or snapshot1 or whatever is the name is stuck Luckily the wasix is more pragmatic and continues where that left off
  - jeffparsons 3y ago
    Genuinely curious: what are you working on that makes POSIX compatibility important, but also warrants using Wasm instead of just building native executables? I ask because I'm personally much more excited about the future of WASI, because it brings so much to the table that it feels like it's actually worth the effort of building something new — I see it as a game changer. I.e. what you appear to view as an unnecessary diversion, I see as the whole point. So I'd love to understand more about your perspective and use case.
jedisct1 3y ago
And there are runtimes and services implementing their own APIs, and there's emscripten which is how most people actually use WebAssembly today. But if you're not porting existing software and only care about the web, these APIs are not very relevant. Oh, and WebAssembly also looks very different if you are using it for smart contracts. This is due to the fact that WebAssembly was not specified with an API to actually use it. But it's okay. CPUs don't ship with an operating system either. It doesn't make them useless, nor prevents multiple operating systems from existing.

jeffparsons 3y ago

> version 1 You mean preview 1? It was never meant to be a finished spec that would remain supported long-term; it was a preview for early adopters and people working in the space to experiment with. > allowed to continue for political reasons Uh... what?

yankput 3y ago
There is no development on the preview 1; and the new development went in new direction so the preview1 or snapshot1 or whatever is the name is stuck Luckily the wasix is more pragmatic and continues where that left off
- jeffparsons 3y ago
  Genuinely curious: what are you working on that makes POSIX compatibility important, but also warrants using Wasm instead of just building native executables? I ask because I'm personally much more excited about the future of WASI, because it brings so much to the table that it feels like it's actually worth the effort of building something new — I see it as a game changer. I.e. what you appear to view as an unnecessary diversion, I see as the whole point. So I'd love to understand more about your perspective and use case.

jedisct1 3y ago

And there are runtimes and services implementing their own APIs, and there's emscripten which is how most people actually use WebAssembly today. But if you're not porting existing software and only care about the web, these APIs are not very relevant. Oh, and WebAssembly also looks very different if you are using it for smart contracts. This is due to the fact that WebAssembly was not specified with an API to actually use it. But it's okay. CPUs don't ship with an operating system either. It doesn't make them useless, nor prevents multiple operating systems from existing.