3 ms·

sandboxing native apps just gives you security. with wasm you also get a single portable binary that can run on x86 windows, arm64 linux and in your browser wit

by tancop 4mo ago

sandboxing native apps just gives you security. with wasm you also get a single portable binary that can run on x86 windows, arm64 linux and in your browser with zero modification. you dont need to write platform specific code or use third party frameworks.

Panzerschrek 4mo ago
> you dont need to write platform specific code You don't need to write platform-specific code if you use some cross-platform framework. For simple programs it may be enough to use only the standard library of your language of choice. > single portable binary that can run on x86 windows, arm64 linux and in your browser with zero modification It has little value. Compiling a separate binary for each OS isn't that hard, since only a handful of architectures and operating systems are actually in use. Using an abstract cross-platform binary (like WASM) in the other hand adds extra performance costs and other user-side overhead, which isn't strictly necessary.
- zcw100 4mo ago
  > You don't need to write platform-specific code if you use some cross-platform framework. For simple programs it may be enough to use only the standard library of your language of choice. That's a circular argument and "some" is doing a lot of work there. What cross-platform framework would you be referring to? > It has little value. Compiling a separate binary for each OS isn't that hard, since only a handful of architectures and operating systems are actually in use. Using an abstract cross-platform binary (like WASM) in the other hand adds extra performance costs and other user-side overhead, which isn't strictly necessary. It my have little value to you but that doesn't mean it has little value to everyone. I don't agree that compiling to multiple architectures is without difficulty and restricting yourself to only popular ones proves the point. What specific "other user-side overhead" would you be referring to? Lots of things aren't strictly necessary, that doesn't imply they're not necessary. Yes, there is a performance cost. Sometimes that cost is worth paying.
pjmlp 4mo ago
No you don't, because WASM is only compute, and you need exactly runtime specific code and third party frameworks for everything else as imported functions.
- hmry 4mo ago
  That's what WASI is for
  - pjmlp 4mo ago
    And like CORBA, or POSIX, the portability does not work 100% as being sold.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

by tancop 4mo ago

Panzerschrek 4mo ago

> you dont need to write platform specific code You don't need to write platform-specific code if you use some cross-platform framework. For simple programs it may be enough to use only the standard library of your language of choice. > single portable binary that can run on x86 windows, arm64 linux and in your browser with zero modification It has little value. Compiling a separate binary for each OS isn't that hard, since only a handful of architectures and operating systems are actually in use. Using an abstract cross-platform binary (like WASM) in the other hand adds extra performance costs and other user-side overhead, which isn't strictly necessary.

zcw100 4mo ago
> You don't need to write platform-specific code if you use some cross-platform framework. For simple programs it may be enough to use only the standard library of your language of choice. That's a circular argument and "some" is doing a lot of work there. What cross-platform framework would you be referring to? > It has little value. Compiling a separate binary for each OS isn't that hard, since only a handful of architectures and operating systems are actually in use. Using an abstract cross-platform binary (like WASM) in the other hand adds extra performance costs and other user-side overhead, which isn't strictly necessary. It my have little value to you but that doesn't mean it has little value to everyone. I don't agree that compiling to multiple architectures is without difficulty and restricting yourself to only popular ones proves the point. What specific "other user-side overhead" would you be referring to? Lots of things aren't strictly necessary, that doesn't imply they're not necessary. Yes, there is a performance cost. Sometimes that cost is worth paying.

pjmlp 4mo ago

No you don't, because WASM is only compute, and you need exactly runtime specific code and third party frameworks for everything else as imported functions.

hmry 4mo ago
That's what WASI is for
- pjmlp 4mo ago
  And like CORBA, or POSIX, the portability does not work 100% as being sold.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]