4 ms·
> The sandboxing abilities of WASM are near unmatched, along with it's startup time and execution speed compared to native. Could you expand on this? I think e
by nindalf 2y ago
> The sandboxing abilities of WASM are near unmatched, along with it's startup time and execution speed compared to native.
Could you expand on this? I think everyone would agree with the first two of these - sandboxing is the whole point of WASM, so it would be excellent at that. And startup latency matters a great deal to WASM programs, again not surprised that runtimes have optimised that.
But execution speed compared to native? Are you saying WASM programs execute faster than native? Or even at the same speed?
- hardwaresofton 2y agoAh this could have been clearer -- the context is userland emulation (and I expand that to broadly mean emulation/VMs and even containers -- i.e. the current group of options). It's not that Wasm is likely to run faster than native, it's that it runs reasonably close to native speed when compared to the other options. Separately, it also matters what you consider "native" -- it is possible to write programs in a more efficient language (ex. one without a runtime), apply reasonable optimizations, and with AOT/JIT be faster than what could be reasonably written idiomatically in the host language (e.g. some library that already exists to do X but just does it inefficiently).