4 ms·
I agree that a lot of the tooling is still early days. There has also been a lot of churn as the wasm component spec has changed. We personally have a goal that
by eqrion 7mo ago
I agree that a lot of the tooling is still early days. There has also been a lot of churn as the wasm component spec has changed. We personally have a goal that in most cases web developers won't need to write WIT and can just use Web API's as if they were a library. But it's early days.
- davexunit 7mo agoI am excited by the prospect of booting Wasm binaries without any JS glue, but when I've looked at the documentation for the component model and WIT it says that resources are references passed using a borrow checking model. That would be a serious downgrade compared to the GC-managed reference passing I can do today with Wasm GC. Do you know if there are any plans to resolve this mismatch?
- bloppe 7mo agoRelevant: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/issues/525 https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/issues/525 In my experience people are often disappointed by the shared-nothing architecture of the component model. I guess that shared-nothing architecture makes it impossible to properly share GC objects across component boundaries. But they can still be shared across core module boundaries.
- bvisness 7mo agoA lot of the time I think you just won’t want to use multiple components. It’s nice to be able to compose them together, I guess, but in general it seems to me that a toolchain will typically just want to generate a single big component so that everything can interact without limits internally.
- j45 7mo agoThe tooling has been in it's early days for a long time. As quickly as that can improve, so will the uptake. The technology itself is quite capable.
- elestor 7mo agoWhat do you mean by churn in this context?