Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

wasmlabs.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 313 posts

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#61

Post by pjmlp »

krona wrote: post #42
zozbot234 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need JNI? You could just compile C-like code to run on the JVM using a byte[] array as the equivalent of memory. This is similar to how high-performance Java code is written already, to ensure that GC is completely out of the way. In fact GCC used to have a JVM target, called GCJ. It was removed due to lack of maintenance.

> You could just compile C-like code Which also involves rewriting literally everything to Java. > In fact GCC used to have a JVM target, called GCJ Which again, had a Java frontend. So, nothing like targeting WASM with C/C++/Rust.

Here have fun, http://nestedvm.ibex.org/

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#62

Post by sp332 »

maxloh wrote: post #54
tony-allan wrote: post #2

If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn't have needed to create Docker. That's how important it is. WebAssembly on the server is the future of computing. - Solomon Hykes (co-founder of Docker) https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

There are some other aspects that docker cannot be replaced. For example, making sure build works accross different platforms and machines. There are too many ways that something may break, incorrect SDK versions, missing dependencies etc. Docker makes sure the OS (container) to be setup correctly to handle the build.

Something like the docker build tools would still be needed, but not the docker runtime.

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#63

Post by kenjackson »

batmansmk wrote: post #30
pulse7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this statement is true, there is no need for Docker, because JVM+JAR existed in 2008! Docker can do more than WASM or JVM+JAR: it can run non-WASM and non-JVM apps like PostgreSQL, etc...

You can compile any C / C++ app down to wasm. In fact that’s the raison d’être of the technology: to provide a portable safe way to run binaries. Here is a link to Postgres in wasm for instance: https://supabase.com/blog/postgres-wasm . The way it works is that instead of outputting assembly for a given architecture in the backend compiler, it outputs wasm instructions that are designed to map all architectures, not…

But don’t I have to compile all my dependencies too? This seems like a lot to ask, but maybe it’s common in some domains.

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#64

Post by pjmlp »

ridruejo wrote: post #27
jdowner wrote: post #22

So, 'write once, run everywhere'... I think we've been here before.

Yes! Wasm builds on top of 20 years of experience and improvements of JVM, CLR. There are a few key differences, but one important one is the universal adoption by the industry (no ActiveX vs Applets war, .NET vs Java) with companies as varied as Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft actively cooperating on moving the standard forward. I have never seen anything like that and I hope it continues for as long as possible!

> > One of the exciting things in Visual Studio .NET is its language agnosticism. If a vendor has written a .NET-compliant language, you can use it in Visual Studio .NET. It'll work just as well as C# or C++ or Visual Basic. This isn't just a future feature-in-planning. There are already nearly two dozen languages being developed for Visual Studio .NET: Visual Basic, C#, C++, JScript, APL, Cobol, Eiffel, Fortran, Pascal, Perl, Python, RPG, Smalltalk, Oberon, Component Pascal, Haskell/Mondrian, Scheme, Mercury, Alice, and even the Java language.

-- February 2002 issue of MSDN Magazine

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2002...

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#65

Post by nine_k »

tony-allan wrote: post #2

If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn't have needed to create Docker. That's how important it is. WebAssembly on the server is the future of computing. - Solomon Hykes (co-founder of Docker) https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

This sounds incredible, as if the co-founder of Docker fails to understand the crucial value proposition of Docker (hence Docker's financial troubles, maybe).

The point of Docker is the ability to take the existing Rube-Goldberg-machine configurations of software, in any and many languages (including the gluing bash scripts), and put it basically unchanged into a controlled, isolated, replicated, shippable environment, with zero performance penalty.

It's very unlike WASM / WASI approach which requires recompiling stuff, runs non-native code, and completely changes the environment in which the code has to run. It's also like 2x as slow, compared to native code. It has its important upsides, but they are very unlike Docker's, in my eyes.

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#66

Post by ilyt »

pjmlp wrote: post #3
tony-allan wrote: post #2

If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn't have needed to create Docker. That's how important it is. WebAssembly on the server is the future of computing. - Solomon Hykes (co-founder of Docker) https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

Indeed, he just had to make use of JVM or CLR based application servers instead. That is what this whole trend is all about, replicating application servers with WASM. Every time I need to dive into k8s stuff, I can only think "this was so much easier when configuring WebSphere and EAR deployments".

Well, having essentially a VM that was supposedly designed to be language-agnostic and easy to sandbox is a benefit over a VM that is designed for single language and never put much thought into embedding.

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#67

Post by pjmlp »

orf wrote: post #8
pjmlp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, those that act like WebAssembly is reinvinting the world kind of do. And applications get tied to the WebAssembly ecosystem, it is also a single one.

While it’s true that it somewhat locks you into a single VM type (WASM), that’s very different from being locked into the JVM. For one, the idea is that it should be fairly simple to compile an arbitrary program to WASM, allowing you to use a far wider variety of languages. In this case, it’s more akin to “docker with extra steps” as opposed to “docker but you can only hire Java devs”

Well, http://nestedvm.ibex.org/

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#68

Post by ilyt »

lucideer wrote: post #18
pulse7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this statement is true, there is no need for Docker, because JVM+JAR existed in 2008! Docker can do more than WASM or JVM+JAR: it can run non-WASM and non-JVM apps like PostgreSQL, etc...

> JVM+JAR existed JVM can only run apps written for it: Docker & WASM don't have that limitation. > it can run non-WASM and non-JVM apps like PostgreSQL, etc... but WASM can run Postgres

> JVM can only run apps written for it: Docker & WASM don't have that limitation.

Of course it does; WASM is just a format, still need to create the right functions that the runtime will call to do the useful stiff

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#69

Post by kenjackson »

ereslibre wrote: post #48
haspok wrote: post #33

So it's kind of like GraalVM with cgroups? How about Kubernetes, in other words, how does this scale (I understand the single process proposition, but can't see how it replaces multiple containers, which might be deployed on multiple VMs / hardware)? In other words, what is the WASM runtime running on? In the article they show a WASI layer, but that does not replace a VM / container (AFAIK), so you still need an OS t…

WebAssembly is a binary format executed in a virtual machine. By default, the execution is isolated from the host OS, so that there is no concept of syscall to the OS directly from your WebAssembly module. The WASM module calls to certain exports (the WASI layer) whose endpoints are implemented by the runtime. However, the runtime in this case has the ability to decide whether and how this call that would correspond…

Can you address the question about needing to compile all dependencies….

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#70

Post by chriswarbo »

maxloh wrote: post #54
tony-allan wrote: post #2

If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn't have needed to create Docker. That's how important it is. WebAssembly on the server is the future of computing. - Solomon Hykes (co-founder of Docker) https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

There are some other aspects that docker cannot be replaced. For example, making sure build works accross different platforms and machines. There are too many ways that something may break, incorrect SDK versions, missing dependencies etc. Docker makes sure the OS (container) to be setup correctly to handle the build.

> For example, making sure build works accross different platforms and machines

Unfortunately Docker only works on Linux, since it's tied to specific syscalls. Those on other platforms (e.g. macOS) can only run it in a VM (e.g. the Docker Desktop application is built on top of a VM running Linux)

> here are too many ways that something may break, incorrect SDK versions, missing dependencies etc.

AFAIK Docker doesn't actually address that. It provides a "Dockerfile", which is essentially just a shell script; users still have to manage dependencies themselves, e.g. by having their Dockerfile invoke an actual package manager.

> Docker makes sure the OS (container) to be setup correctly to handle the build.

Containers aren't operating systems; they only need the desired executable, plus its run-time dependencies (e.g. libc).

Post reply on HN