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

Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 238 posts

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#211

Post by imtringued »

naikrovek wrote: post #90
chubot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Java is no longer a valid deployment platform for dynamically executing untrusted code. https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/chrome.xml The Java Plugin for web browsers relies on the cross-platform plugin architecture NPAPI, which had been supported by all major web browsers for over a decade. Google's Chrome version 45 and above have dropped support for NPAPI, and therefore Java Plugin do not work on these browsers…

Java inside the browser doesn't exist. That's fine. That's not what I'm talking about or making comparisons to. Java runs just fine outside of the browser. You don't even need a browser installed to run Java applications. Javascript and WASM run fine inside the browser, and that's not what I'm talking about or making comparisons to. I'm talking about running WASM binaries outside of the browser. Similar to how Java r…

Because Java exists for a different purpose, namely to run Java. (Ever tried to run your C or rust code on the JVM?)

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#212

Post by imtringued »

sitkack wrote: post #77
naikrovek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, that's all correct and valid. Java still exists and is a valid deployment platform. Why is WebAssembly outside of the browser needed?

Signed types and a proper cross language target. There is very little technical difference between the two, esp now that GraalVM has shipped. WASM is now the portable executable standard. https://www.graalvm.org/

So you're saying the JVM wasn't good enough so they had to make a better one? Why does the HN crowd constantly compare WASM with the "obsolete" JVM, when even the creator admits that it is not adequate?

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#213

Post by 59nadir »

hathawsh wrote: post #143

Solomon Hykes, co-founder of Docker, believes WASM+WASI could take the place of Docker. https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

This was my exact thought when I read the article as well. We currently have projects that are linux-specific in their build step and so even when I use a language server I actually have to run docker for it. I've patched the language server to run inside of a docker container and it works, but it's super slow and required two days of work + random fixes here and there.

WASI would give me near-native performance for this one without any additional work, and also fix issues like how file watchers don't work correctly, provided the source language has a compile-to-WASM option.

It's a massive game changer that could solve this issue after the fact. Even a 2x performance cost from native would mean a massive boost in performance and management in comparison to running it through Docker Desktop.

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#214

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

Touche wrote: post #179
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like any new feature added to the web standard requires that Apple actually implement it in Safari, right? I'm not really pro-WASI so much as I am against the idea that the browser is a good application platform.

Right, just like that. They are totally comparable, adding a new feature to an existing runtime is just as hard to convince as adding a new runtime itself. Totally comparable.

My understanding is that Apple still doesn't implement some new web standards, so yeah actually.

Ultimately, if a vendor refuses to support something, it doesn't matter if it is an 'open standard' or not. The openness means absolutely nothing in this instance.

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#215

Post by specialist »

otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #118
gwbas1c wrote: post #91

Wait a second... I thought Java was supposed to do this with the JVM... I thought .Net was supposed to do this with the CLR... What's different now?

The JVM and CLR suck balls. They put in huge amounts of effort into things that don't need solving, and the things that need to be solved they do in the most roundabout way possible. What we _really_ need is a sandboxed VM for running C code securely and efficiently. The JVM is pretty much the opposite of that; it's not sandboxed, not secure and certainly not efficient as a target for C code. We're hoping WASM starts…

What would a sandbox for C (native code) look like?

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#217

Post by krapp »

naikrovek wrote: post #216

The amount of hatred in this thread for non-web technologies is insane.

Funny, I see the exact opposite. People dismissing WASM as unecessary, or just another Java, or just another Flash, or just another Node.js, or something that shouldn't exist outside of the browser.

If it didn't have "web" in the name, I think people would hate it a lot less.

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#218

Post by hutzlibu »

kllrnohj wrote: post #205
hutzlibu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which nonproprietary plattform can I use today, to reach the widest audience?

Not a useful question to ask or answer, as the answer is either anything or nothing depending on how nitpicky you want to get or where you feel like drawing an arbitrary line. For example do you consider C++ on Windows to be a proprietary platform, even though C++'s STL isn't proprietary? If so, then WASI on Windows must also be proprietary, no? And if you don't consider C++ to be proprietary, then, you know, you can…

With C++ you have to compile to a specific plattform. So yes, that works, but is different to WASI, where you compile once and can deploy whereever a runtime exists.

And apart from that, yes .NET is the only alternative I see today. But you don't see the benefits, of a new lower level option, entering the field?

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#219

Post by maccio92 »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #147
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UNIX is a good counter-argument.

UNIX is thoroughly obsolete. Its continued use is from inetia; people rarely need anything but a tiny subset of its capabilities, for which there are more simpler alternatives every day.

are you kidding? do you know how many subsystems that people take for granted are using UNIX? furthermore, how do you get simpler than UNIX? it's not complex..

Re: Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web

#220

Post by naasking »

rndgermandude wrote: post #202
naasking wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can publish a standalone .NET Core app that's only around 30MB in size. Honestly, it shouldn't need to be that big. There's plenty of cruft even in .NET core.

That will probably come done quiet a bit when illink gets out of alpha. It is basically a tree-shaker to eliminate dead/unused stuff from the resulting standalone binary. https://github.com/dotnet/announcements/issues/30

A tree shaking linker will definitely help a lot, but there's still some runtime baggage that probably can't be removed. For instance, dynamic loading and all of the related type and assembly metadata structures. I look forward to seeing what they can do!
Post reply on HN