traveling-ruby VS container2wasm

https://github.com/YOU54F/traveling-ruby

ruby-packer is what I use to distribute a paid CLI, although on macOS only because my product is specifically for customers on macOS.

The advantage of ruby-packer is that it is much simpler, but you need to have access to each OS where you want to distribute your executable. OTOH, with traveling-ruby, you can build executables for all OSes from the same machine.

The existence of vscode.dev always makes me wonder why Microsoft never released an iOS version of VSCode to get more users into its ecosystem. Sure, it's almost as locked down as the web environment, but there's a lot of space in that "almost" - you could do all sorts of things like let users run their code, or complex extensions, in containers in a web view using https://github.com/ktock/container2wasm or similar.

Unfortunately cosmopolitan wouldn't work for dockerc. Cosmopolitan works as long as you only use it but container runtimes require additional features. Also containers contain arbitrary executables so not sure how that would work either...

As for WASM, this is already possible using container2wasm[0] and wasmer[1]'s ability to generate static binaries.

[0]: https://github.com/ktock/container2wasm

[1]: https://wasmer.io/

Really impressed by the depth and breadth of this project, well done!

A particularly interesting part is the socket layer inside the browser. Other people solving this problem have previously used a proxy to a server that does the real socket implementation. This means you can't have a "browser-only" solution.

The author has solved this (for HTTP/S only) by proxying HTTP requests and then re-creating them as fetch requests (details here: https://github.com/ktock/container2wasm/tree/main/examples/n...). I'm very interested in using this approach for my own project Runno (https://runno.dev).