component-model VS wasi-libc

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

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.