awesome-wasm-runtimes VS Graal

Firecracker is a fine technology, but serverless companies have started taking advantage Wasm's faster start-up times for use cases of running Wasm on the server (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqgCxhPAao0). The deny by default security policy makes Wasm a great choice to run your code in isolation, particularly for maximizing hardware resources in the multi-tenant environments these serverless companies operate.

In the past few years, we have seen more use cases of Wasm emerge outside of the browser. JavaScript engines are now just a fraction of the total number of runtimes available. Wasmtime, Wasmer, WasmEdge, wazero are popular ones for non-browser use cases like blockchain, serverless, and edge computing (although Cloudflare uses V8's Wasm engine). WAMR is a popular one for cyber physical/IoT devices. There's a nice list here: https://github.com/appcypher/awesome-wasm-runtimes

There's plenty of other ways to interact with Wasm, most of which are secure. (Wasmtime is the one I'm most familiar with, which is why I linked to it.)

Yeah, this is one of many non-browser runtimes, e.g. see https://github.com/appcypher/awesome-wasm-runtimes

Lunatic is more opinionated than most of these or node, though, in that it's trying to emulate a particular concurrent system design pattern borrowed from Erlang/BEAM.

There's an overview of different WASM runtimes with features: https://github.com/appcypher/awesome-wasm-runtimes

Now, the creation Bytecode Alliance, the development of multiple WebAssembly runtimes and the work of the W3C WebAssembly Community Group is why I belive it will get popular, but the capability-based security model is why I want it to get popular.

⚖ I think it's really cool that a plugin author could compile their C++ to .wasm such that a single plugin binary can run on either Linux or Windows (don't need an x86 .dll, x64 .dll, x86 .so, x64 .so...) and in a sandbox (no arbitrary syscalls or Win32 calls, just the interfaces given to it), while still getting near native AOT speed. Though, it's hard to judge which one to choose from now with all the wasm engines that are available (https://github.com/appcypher/awesome-wasm-runtimes), with wasmtime or inNative being two others I've considered for my project. I'll definitely look into this one though, given it supports many of the newer proposals.

Numerous native runtimes for webassembly already exist[0], with the current popular choices apparently being Wasmer[1] and Wasmtime[2].

All one would need to do (AFAIK) is ship a client for all major platforms, as is done with Electron (and web browsers themselves, and everything else.)

[0]https://github.com/appcypher/awesome-wasm-runtimes

Contrary to what vocal Kotlin advocates might believe, Kotlin only matters on Android, and that is thanks to Google pushing it no matter what.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-top-programming-languages-2023

https://snyk.io/reports/jvm-ecosystem-report-2021/

And even so, they had to conceed Android and Kotlin on their own, without the Java ecosystem aren't really much useful, thus ART is now updatable via Play Store, and currently supports OpenJDK 17 LTS on Android 12 and later devices.

As for your question regarding numbers, mostly Java 74.6%, C++ 13.7%, on the OpenJDK, other JVM implementations differ, e.g. GraalVM is mostly Java 91.8%, C 3.6%.

https://github.com/openjdk/jdk

https://github.com/oracle/graal

Two examples from many others, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines

Pkl was built using the GraalVM Truffle framework. So it supports runtime compilation using Futurama Projections. We have been working with Apple on this for a while, and I am quite happy that we can finally read the sources!

https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/truffle

Disclaimer: graalvm dev here.

That's pretty interesting. It's not as aggressive as Bee sounds, but the Espresso JVM is somewhat similar in concept. It's a full blown JVM written in Java with all the mod cons, which can either be compiled ahead of time down to memory-efficient native code giving something similar to a JVM written in C++, or run itself as a Java application on top of another JVM. In the latter mode it obviously doesn't achieve top-tier performance, but the advantage is you can easily hack on it using all the regular Java tools, including hotswapping using the debugger.

When run like this, the bytecode interpreter, runtime system and JIT compiler are all regular Java that can be debugged, edited, explored in the IDE, recompiled quickly and so on. Only the GC is provided by the host system. If you compile it to native code, the GC is also written in Java (with some special conventions to allow for convenient direct memory access).

What's most interesting is that Espresso isn't a direct translation of what a classical C++ VM would look like. It's built on the Truffle framework, so the code is extremely high level compared to traditional VM code. Details like how exactly transitions between the interpreter/compiled code happen, how you communicate pointer maps to the GC and so on are all abstracted away. You don't even have to invoke the JIT compiler manually, that's done for you too. The only code Espresso really needs is that which defines the semantics of the Java bytecode language and associated tools like the JDWP debugger protocol.

https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/espresso

This design makes it easy to experiment with new VM features that would be too difficult or expensive to implement otherwise. For example it implements full hotswap capability that lets you arbitrarily redefine code and data on the fly. Espresso can also fully self-host recursively without limit, meaning you can achieve something like what's described in the paper by running Espresso on top of Espresso.

I'm also using GraalVM if that's of any help.

Quarkus is one of Java frameworks for microservices development and cloud-native deployment. It is developed as container-first stack and working with GraalVM and HotSpot virtual machines (VM).

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply DCEVM went poof, just that I was sad it didn't make it into OpenJDK so one need not do JDK silliness between the production one and the "debugging one" since my experience is that's an absolutely stellar way to produce Heisenbugs

And I'll be straight: Graal scares me 'cause Oracle but I just checked and it looks to the casual observer that it's straight-up GPLv2 now so maybe my fears need revisiting: https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/vm-23.1.0/LICENSE

> to be compiled to a single executable is a strength that Java does not have

I think this is very outdated claim: https://www.graalvm.org/

https://github.com/oracle/graal/issues/7182