component-model VS spec

I don't think that's a very good goal. Jettisoning the DOM means jettisoning accessibility and being able to leverage everything that the browser gives you out-of-the-box. You have to render to a canvas and build everything from scratch. I think Wasm is great for supplementing a JS app, not replacing it (e.g. using a Wasm module to do some calculations in a Worker). I like to use the right tool for the job, and trying to use something other than JS to build a web app just seems a little janky to me.

At one point, there was a Host Bindings proposal that would enable you to do DOM manipulation (it looks like it was archived and moved to the Component Model spec [1]). That would probably be the ideal way to avoid as much JS as possible. However, browser vendors have been heavily optimizing their JS runtimes, and in some cases, Wasm may actually be slower than JS.

I've been following Wasm's progress for several years, which has been slow, but steady. Ironically, I think the web is actually the worst place to use it. There's so much cool non-web stuff being done with it and I'm more interested to see where that goes.

[1] https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model?tab=readme-ov...

Well the great thing about WebAssembly is that you can port QT or anything else to be at a layer below -- thanks to WebAssembly Interface Types[0] and the Component Model specification that works underneath that.

To over-simplify, the Component Model manages language interop, and WIT constrains the boundaries with interfaces.

IMO the problem here is defining a 90% solution for most window, tab, button, etc management, then building embeddings in QT, Flutter/Skia, and other lower level engines. Getting a good cross-platform way of doing data passing, triggering re-renders, serializing window state is probably the meat of the interesting work.

On top of that, you really need great UX. This is normally where projects fall short -- why should I use this solution instead of something like Tauri[2] which is excellent or Electron?

[0]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/des...

[1]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/des...

[2]: https://tauri.app/

While I don't necessarily agree with the unnecessary, unsupported casual, & cheap contempt culture here ("unshackle the web from the mess that is JavaScript", "places that don't really need these problems to be solved")...

WebAssembly component-model is being developed to allow referring to and passing complex objects between different modules and the outside world, by establishing WebAssembly Interface Types (WIT). It's basically a ABI layer for wasm. This is a pre-requisite for host-object bridging, bringing in things like DOM elements.

Long running effort, but it's hard work and there's just not that many hands available for this deep work. Some assorted links with more: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model https://www.fermyon.com/blog/webassembly-component-model https://thenewstack.io/can-webassembly-get-its-act-together-...

It's just hard work, it's happening. And I think the advantages Andy talks to here illuminate very real reasons why this tech can be useful broadly. The ability to have plugins to a system that can be safely sandboxed is a huge win. That it's in any language allows much wider ecosystem of interests to participate, versus everyone interested in extending your work also having to be a java or c++ or rust developer.

A. Sure, but it isn't sufficiently beneficial for the cost.

B. WebAssembly is immature for developing a plugin system because of the lack of a sufficient ABI: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model

C. There aren't any other languages that meet the criteria. Lua was a no-go from the start. The maintainers did not like the language, and it necessitated adding more C code to Helix which could complicate building even further. https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/discussions/3806#discu...

AFAIK GC is irrelevant for "direct DOM access", you would rather want to hop into the following rabbit hole:

- reference types: https://github.com/WebAssembly/reference-types/blob/master/p...

- interface types (inactive): https://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-types/blob/main/pro...

- component model: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model

If this looks like a mess, that's because it is. Compared to that, the current solution to go through a Javascript shim doesn't look too bad IMHO.

The wasm idl (called WIT) is actively being worked on here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/des...

Being able to access DOM is definitely an objective. It's just taking a lot longer than folks guessed to build a modular wasm ABI.

The WASM Component Model

https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model

Take a look at the python abi to see what the structure looks like for calling into components https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/tree/main/design/mvp/canonical-abi

You can parse many things from this file, what are you trying to extract?

https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/blob/main/document/core/...

Still strikes me as super sad JS never got SIMD support. It seemed like there were some strong candidate specs. On Node there are some add-on npm libraries that implement.

My understanding was the main protest was that we would get wasm & some certain implementers said they wanted to focus their energy on wasm.

That was well over half a decade ago & wasm is still in incredible infancy, with basically only statically linked capabilities in the spec.

Wasm SIMD proposal itself only merged into wasm in November 2021. https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/pull/1391

It seems really unfortunate to have decided to keep JS the slow inferior language.

Blazor and WASM itself (outside of dotnet) are relatively new tools and they already show impressive results. They will keep getting better with every release. E.g. this proposal https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/blob/main/proposals/simd/SIMD.md which should bring WASM closer to "near native speed". Blazor already started working on it true.

Big fan of this author's work.

They have a Gameboy emulator written in C, which can be compiled to WASM and run in the browser.

https://github.com/binji/binjgb

I learned a lot from the code.

Also I love this project with a bunch of demos in hand-written WebAssembly Text (WAT) format, which is like low-level Lisp that works only with raw memory, numbers, and minimal syntax.

https://github.com/binji/raw-wasm

Then I discovered the same author is quite active in the WebAssembly ecosystem, including specs and tooling. Fascinating stuff!

https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec

https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt

[The WebAssembly specification (https://webassembly.github.io/spec/) maintains that the standards apply to more than just the browser host, but also to any other compliant host runtime (what the specification refers to as an embedder).

Heya,

(1) Thank you for implementing this in JSC!! I hope they take it, it makes it into Safari, and the tail-call proposal advances.

(2) I don't think you are exactly right about the call stack being observable via thrown exceptions. There's no formal spec for the v3 exceptions proposal yet, but in the documents and tests, there's nothing that would change in WebAssembly core to make the call stack observable. It's true that the proposal amends the JS API (but only the JS API) to describe a traceStack=true option; from Wasm's perspective I understand that's just an ordinary exception that happens to include an externref value (just like any other value) to which Wasm itself attaches no special significance. The engine can attach a stack trace if it wants, but there's no requirement (here) about what that stack trace contains or whether some frames might have been optimized out.

(3) I think the real reason that a Wasm engine can't implicitly make tail calls proper is that the spec tests forbid it, basically because they didn't want the implementation base to split by having some engines perform an optimization that changes the space complexity of a program, which some programs would have started to depend on (the spec tests say: "Implementations are required to have every call consume some abstract resource towards exhausting some abstract finite limit, such that infinitely recursive test cases reliably trap in finite time. This is because otherwise applications could come to depend on it on those implementations and be incompatible with implementations that don't do it (or don't do it under the same circumstances.)" More discussion here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/150

The WASM paper discusses that in the final section: https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/blob/master/papers/pldi2017.pdf

WebAssembly has a formal specification that includes both operational semantics and natural language-based descriptions of everything in the language. The official repository also has a lot of tests. Besides tests, you should be able to find lots of examples by searching.