AECforWebAssembly VS PyOxidizer

Great! I have not yet made source maps for my programming language that compiles to WebAssembly, and I probably never will.

Up until today, my AEC-to-WebAssembly was, if somebody tried to use two structures of different types as the second and the third operand to the ?: (ternary conditional) operator, as in this example: ``` Structure First Consists Of Nothing; EndStructure

Well, I have written the first compiler for my programming language, targetting x86, in IE6-compatible JavaScript, and the second compiler, targetting WebAssembly, has been written in C++11. I think that, to choose a language to write a compiler in, you need to look at at least two things:

You can see the releases v2.5.3 and v2.5.2 of AECforWebAssembly on GitHub. They are produced with the same version of GCC, the only difference (as far as I know) is that v2.5.2 was produced directly on Debian, whereas v2.5.3 was cross-compiled from Windows to Linux using Docker.

That could be true. I host my AEC-to-WebAssembly compiler on GitHub, GitLab and SourceForge, and it's only on GitHub that it has 21 stars and 2 forks. On GitLab and SourceForge, it has zero of both.

Well, the main compiler for my programming language is targetting the JavaScript Virtual Machine by outputting WebAssembly. I think it's even better than targetting Java Virtual Machine, because, for one thing, your executables can run in any modern browser if you output WebAssembly. If you target Java Virtual Machine, the users need to actually download your app. Furthermore, there is an official assembler for WebAssembly called WebAssembly Binary Toolkit (WABT), so your compiler can output assembly and not have to deal with binary files. There is nothing equivalent to that for Java Virtual Machine.

Bundling Python isn't too bad if you find the right tools for it.

I really like https://github.com/indygreg/python-build-standalone and https://github.com/indygreg/PyOxidizer

A bundled, built standalone Python can be 16 to 32MB (including the full standard library, which you can strip down to just the bits you use to save size). Not tiny, but probably not worth switching programming languages over.

But really, I would suggest thinking about what you want to build before "how" or "with which tool" - one of the signs of a person becoming a good engineer is having an array of tools at their disposal and being able to choose a correct tool for the correct task. Rust also excels in integrating with other languages - with JS via WebAssembly (a bit of self-promotion, for example), with Elixir via Rustler, with Python via PyO3 and PyOxidizer, etc. So you absolutely can start writing a frontend app with JS, or a distributed system with Elixir, or a data processing/ML app with Python and use Rust to speed up critical parts of those. Or, in reverse, you can start with Rust & add new capabilities to whatever you're building, that being a frontend, a resilient chat interface, or an ML model.

Thank you, although this is not exactly on topic. I'd not heard of PyOxidizer, but it appears to have the same goal as PyInstaller, py2exe, and cx_Freeze -- as the PyOxidizer readme says, it produces

Here is some example Github Action from PyOxidizer as a Kickstarter: https://github.com/indygreg/PyOxidizer/blob/main/.github/workflows/build-exe.yml

A starting point to try out binary modules by the way would be https://github.com/indygreg/PyOxidizer - could already have benefits by rolling in all dependencies of modules (so no more pip/apt/dnf/... installs on target hosts). Setting this up should be relatively straightforward and could probably be automated enough to even manage to build binary modules for all modules in the community ansible distribution eventually.

PyOxidizer might be another option.

XAR signing is effectively just an RFC 5652 CMS signature plus some minimal data structure manipulation. Code at https://github.com/indygreg/PyOxidizer/blob/faa7dfcea5d66bf5....

Mach-O and bundles, by contrast, require a myriad of additional data structures requiring thousands of lines of code to support. To my knowledge, nobody else has implemented signing of these far-more-complicated primitives. (Existing Mach-O signing solutions just do ad-hoc signing and/or don't handle Mach-O in the context of a bundle.)