awesome-wasm-runtimes VS wasi-libc

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

Now there are projects like WASI that allows for interfacing with system resources for WASM code this allows for devs to target WASM runtime for their apps sliding the apps to run locally on any OS without any porting required. This could be a game changer in the future like Docker and containers was in the past decade.

So it doesn’t seem like there has been progress on a pseudo-random number generator function for typst, but there are multiple other ways to solve this: 1. Just don’t. Typst has this functional philosophy, there one input always produces the same output. (not an answer to your question tho) 2. Interface with a webassembly module which has a random number generator. So you could e.g. compile c to wasm and statically link a libc version. You would then just have to export the rand() function. (You could use any lang for this, which has a stdlib with a pseudo random number generator) 3. Implement your own. Random number generators are actually not that hard something like an LCG isn’t to complex. (Id provide an example but im on my phone rn)

Actually WASI[0] will be a better alternative, IIRC extism serialize and deserialize the data that you want to pass every time, adding a lot of overhead.

[0] https://wasi.dev

Actually, it was in wasi-libc: https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc/blob/main/libc-bott...

Proper isolation in C# is only now becoming a thing, with .Net support for WASI, which is essentially a WebAssembly sandbox which can be given extremely granular privileges (such as access to spefic file system directories, or an effective virtual file system). As an upside, the idea is that it should be possible to write the WASI packages in more or less anything.

Wasm Labs dev here :)

In mod_wasm, there are some differences with a pure CGI implementation. When Apache boots, it loads the configuration and initializes the WasmVM. When a new HTTP request arrives, the VM is ready so you don't need to initialize a different process to manage it.

You still need to process the request and pass the data to the Wasm module. This step is done via STDIN through the WebAssembly System Interface (WASI) implementation [0]. The same happens in the opposite direction, as the module returns the data via STDOUT.

So, the CGI pattern is still there, but it doesn't require new processes and all the code runs in a sandbox.

However this is not the only way you can run a Wasm module. In this specific case, we use CGI via WASI. In other cases, you may compile a module to fulfill a specific API, like ProxyWasm [1] to create HTTP filters for proxies like Envoy.

- [0] https://wasi.dev/

- [1] https://github.com/proxy-wasm/spec

Never done that, but I think you need this: https://wasi.dev/

The Python builds from the WebAssembly language runtimes [0] project target the WebAssembly System Interfaces (WASI) [1]. It allows the Python interpreter to interact with resources like the filesystem.

Many server-side Wasm runtimes supports WASI out of the box. For the browser, you need to provide a polyfill to emulate these resources like the one provided by the WASI team [2].

Regarding SQLite, these builds include libsqlite so you should be able to use it :)

- [0] https://github.com/vmware-labs/webassembly-language-runtimes

- [1] https://wasi.dev/

- [2] https://wasi.dev/polyfill/

Effective debugging results in effective programming; itk-wasm makes effective debugging of WebAssembly possible. In this tutorial, adapted from the itk-wasm documentation, we walk through how to debug a C++ data processing pipeline with the mature, native binary debugging tools that are comfortable for developers. This is a fully featured way to ensure the base correctness of a processing pipeline. Next, we will walk through an interactive debugging experience for WASI WebAssembly. With itk-wasm, we can debug the same source code in either context with an interactive debugger. We also have a convenvient way to pass data from our local filesystem into a WebAssembly (Wasm) processing pipeline.

Communication between the WASM module and the rest of the application needs to be done in very simple types (bytes, ints and floats). No complex types are supported yet. This is why most WASM compilers also provide some glue-code to map between complex types like strings or arrays. The Web Assembly System Interface (WAS) is an on-progress standard aimed to solve this last limitation; once it's mature it will allow easy interoperation with almost every environment. WASI is already available in some WSAM compilers and runtimes.