This is correct, and it's something people who use WASM for security need to be aware of. My program can use WASM to execute untrusted user-supplied code (such

This is correct, and it's something people who use WASM for security need to be aware of. My program can use WASM to execute untrusted user-supplied code (such as web pages) safely, but compiling my application to WASM and running it in a sandboxed VM doesn't protect me from security bugs in my own code. Is this an example of WASM not learning from other bytecodes though? 1) Has other bytecodes fixed it? It's not like compiling your C application to CLR protects you from internal memory corruption bugs either, right? And 2) Was protecting against internal memory corruption even a goal? To me it always seemed like the purpose of WASM is to be a cross platform way to run untrusted code sandboxed, just like JS but faster and more appropriate as a compilation target; and whether you compile to WASM or JS, your C program might have memory corruption bugs. If you're only complaining about the VC-funded hype machine, I could probably be convinced that WASM is sold as something it isn't. I haven't seen it myself really but it's exactly what those sorts of people are wont to do. But that's surely a critique of the hype machine, not of WASM failing to learn from other bytecode designs, no?