3 ms·
At the bottom WASM is 'just' another ISA, e.g. compilers just need to add a new backend, while interfaces / APIs / languages don't need to change (or just as mu
by flohofwoe 2y ago
At the bottom WASM is 'just' another ISA, e.g. compilers just need to add a new backend, while interfaces / APIs / languages don't need to change (or just as much as switching between CPU archs like x86 vs ARM).
Main difference (and main advantage) to other ISAs and VM bytecodes is probably that WASM has been built from the ground up with the requirement to run untrusted code safely (because that is absolutely needed for the web browser use case) while not 'leaking' any safety-related requirements up into the programming languages.
Anything on top of the 'WASM is just another ISA' idea is mostly just the usual Silicon Valley hype machine at work.
- 1oooqooq 2y agothat's buying the marketing. wasm gives you nothing more than any modern kernel. in fact, after you add the extensions required for your program to do literary anything, like accessing fs, network, etc, then you're out of wasm sandbox and back into depending on the kernel safeguarding you from the wasm host anyway. so what's the point?
- throwaway81523 2y agoIt would be more interesting if they made WASM into more of a mini-OS, like BEAM.
- leoqa 2y agoThat is clearly the logical conclusion.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- brontitall 2y agoI thought WASM allowed capability based permissions for the code running inside, or has that fallen by the wayside, which was my sad expectation?