jco VS .NET Runtime

> WASI-Preview2's benefits are not going to be realized in a browser, it's more for the non-web world

The jco project (https://github.com/BytecodeAlliance/jco) provides an implementation of the Component Model and WASI Preview 2 for JavaScript systems. Right now, node.js support is complete, but support for Web embeddings is in progress and coming soon.

> These interpreted languages can run in WASM, but only as language interpreter inside the WASM interpreter - so they work, but they are not efficient.

The Bytecode Alliance has made big improvements to SpiderMonkey performance on WASM/WASI systems, and has work in progress to take advantage of SpiderMonkey's "native" codegen targeting WASM: https://cfallin.org/blog/2023/10/11/spidermonkey-pbl/. We targeted JS first for this work because it is the most popular language with our customers and users, but we expect that this will show the path to adding similar improvements to Ruby, Python, and other languages commonly thought of as "interpreted".

I use @wasmer/wasi for my npm package `trealla` (wasm port of a Prolog interpreter). For the most part I'm pretty happy with it, but the file size is quite large[1] (taking up around half my bundle size), and it looks like @wasmer/sdk is even larger (wasmer.sh downloads a 1.7MB gzipped wasm binary that I assume is the runtime). It's a tough sell to the frontend folks when my package is this big... currently I have my eye on jco[2] which I hope will be much lighter.

[1]: https://bundlephobia.com/package/@wasmer/[email protected]

[2]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/jco

You literally write the code in the language you prefer, and given the toolchain is in place -and it's in (experimental or preview) place for JavaScript, with teams working on it, like for example JCO- you can compile with Wasm as target.

The roadmap I linked above. The WASI folks have done a poor job at communicating, no doubt, but I'm surprised someone like yourself literally building a competitor spec isn't following what they are doing closely.

Just for you I did some googling: see here[0] for the current status of WASI threads overall, or here[1] and here[2] for what they are up to with WASI in general. In this PR[3] you can see they enabled threads (atomic instructions and shared memory, not thread creation) by default in wasmtime. And in this[4] repository you can see they are actively developing the thread creation API and have it as their #1 priority.

If folks want to use WASIX as a quick and dirty hack to compile existing programs, then by all means, have at it! I can see that being a technical win. Just know that your WASIX program isn't going to run natively in wasmtime (arguably the best WASM runtime today), nor will it run in browsers, because they're not going to expose WASIX - they're going to go with the standards instead. so far you're the only person I've met that thinks exposing POSIX fork() to WASM is a good idea, seemingly because it just lets you build existing apps 'without modification'.

Comical you accuse me of being polarizing, while pushing for your world with two competing WASI standards, two competing thread creation APIs, and a split WASM ecosystem overall.

[0] https://github.com/bytecodealliance/jco/issues/247#issuecomm...

[1] https://bytecodealliance.org/articles/wasmtime-and-cranelift...

[2] https://bytecodealliance.org/articles/webassembly-the-update...

[3] https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/7285

[4] https://github.com/WebAssembly/shared-everything-threads

The component model is already shipping in Wasmtime, and will be stable for use in Node.js and in browsers via jco (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/jco) soon. WASI Preview 2 will be done in December or January, giving component model users a stable set of interfaces to use for scheduling, streams, and higher level functionality like stdio, filesystem, sockets, and http on an opt-in basis. You should look at wit-bindgen (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wit-bindgen) to see some of the languages currently supported, and more that will be mature enough to use very soon (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/componentize-py)

Right now jco will automatically generate the JS glue code which implements a Component Model runtime on top of the JS engine's existing WebAssembly implementation. So, yes, Components are a composition of Wasm Modules and JS code is handling passing values from one module/instance to another. You still get the performance benefits of running computation in Wasm.

One day further down the standardization road, we would like to see Web engines ship a native implementation of the Component Model, which might be able to make certain optimizations that the JS implementation cannot. Until then you can consider jco a polyfill for a native implementation, and it still gives you the power to compose isolated programs written in many languages and run them in many different contexts, including the Web.

(Disclosure: I am co-chair of WASI, Wasmtime maintainer, implemented many parts of WASI/CM)

(As a side note for the JS support — adapting QuickJS has been extremely helpful in getting JS support out; however, we are in the process of rebuilding the JS runtime using SpiderMonkey (with which a few people on the team have significant experience) and JCO (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/jco), and the web platform compatibility makes it a significantly better proposition for things like 3rd party dependencies).

C# is an interesting one — the .NET team at Microsoft (and in particular Steve Sanderson from that team) has been making tremendous progress in ahead-of-time compilation for .NET and generating Wasm and WASI compatible binaries (as opposed to their initial approach on Blazor), and experimenting with that led us to build support for Spin as well.

Finally, we do a lot to support other popular languages and their Wasm support — two examples: Python (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/componentize-py) and Java / TeaVM (https://github.com/fermyon/teavm-wasi), for which we haven't fully integrated Spin support, but we hope to get there soon.

I hope this explains a bit our process on language support, happy to expand on any point here.

That's really useful. This page in particular: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/jco/blob/main/EXAMPLE.md

Being able to run "jco wit cowsay.wasm" to see what interfaces that .wasm file provides solves a problem I've run into a bunch of times in the past.

.NET has explicit tailcalls - they are heavily used by and were made for F#.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.reflecti...

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/feat...

The description indicates it is not production ready, and is archived at the same time.

If you pull all stops in each respective language, C# will always end up winning at parsing text as it offers C structs, pointers, zero-cost interop, Rust-style struct generics, cross-platform SIMD API and simply has better compiler. You can win back some performance in Go by writing hot parts in Go's ASM dialect at much greater effort for a specific platform.

For example, Go has to resort to this https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f... in order to efficiently scan memory, while in C# you write the following once and it compiles to all supported ISAs with their respective SIMD instructions for a given vector width: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (there is a lot of code because C# covers much wider range of scenarios and does not accept sacrificing performance in odd lengths and edge cases, which Go does).

Another example is computing CRC32: you have to write ASM for Go https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f..., in C# you simply write standard vectorized routine once https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (its codegen is competitive with hand-intrinsified C++ code).

There is a lot more of this. Performance and low-level primitives to achieve it have been an area of focus of .NET for a long time, so it is disheartening to see one tenth of effort in Go to receive so much spotlight.

It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.

It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).

Or they could use 4-digit years.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148

These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.

Reference:

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620