3 ms·
Very reductive :) there are flavors and hints of all these previous technologies /paradigms in WebAssembly + Component Model today, because only fools would att
by hardwaresofton 7mo ago
Very reductive :) there are flavors and hints of all these previous technologies /paradigms in WebAssembly + Component Model today, because only fools would attempt to build something without considering relevant prior art.
Won't bother trying going through differences/how-this-is-not-that but I'll say this: This time, it's slightly better, just like every time before.
I'd even go so far as to say this iteration is much better than what came before, and the speed of adoption by multiple language toolchains, platforms, operating systems, browsers proves that.
- pjmlp 7mo agoSo far I haven't seen that on the existing tooling, nothing that would make me say it is much better, rather it looks much worse given the developer experience. Zero IDE integration, no right mouse click to generate or consume interfaces/stubs, no debugging tools, no integration with existing toolchains like those alternatives, no wire debugging,.... It feels designed for those that never left the command line, vim and emacs kind of world.
- hardwaresofton 7mo agoI think we probably disagree on the most important parts of the tooling. I’m a lot more focused on what it lets me do/whether the abstractions are right. That said, people have worked on IDE integration (it’s not zero, ex. WIT syntax highlighting), there is existing integration with upstream language tool chains, but trying to debate that seems silly. Whether tech is good or worth exploring is not dictated by IDE support, I think! There has been substantial work on improving debugging, DX and documentation! Hopefully in the LLM age the existing can move even faster
- Touche 7mo agoWhy would "right mouse click" be part of a protocol?
- pjmlp 7mo agoTooling, for adoption.