project-error-handling VS wasmer

This actually is an example of where the compiler errors could (or should have) maybe provided more help or even the potential solution, it might be worth submitting this to the error handling group.

If anyone's interested in helping to shape the future of Rust's built-in error-handling story, there's an error handling project group that's been doing great work recently, e.g. the major effort to move the Error trait into libcore ( https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling/issues/3 ) and stabilizing std::backtrace. You can follow along or get involved via the #project-error-handling channel on the Rust zulip: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/

Getting it into alloc would enable usage in a LOT more contexts, like WASM and kernel code. Does this need a distinct tracking issue outside the ticket for moving it to core or would that just add more administrata?

without trolling https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling exist and is far from having strong conclusion and anyway I will always favor enum Error anyway however I like the idea to have a opaque box in the enum for "this is a opaque error you can't deal with as a user of my api"

IIRC, the Error Handling Project Group is aware of these ideas. If this kind of thing interests you and you want to contribute, you should look into getting involved with that group.

> you should have the underlying message of the std::io::Error

This is a point of debate[1] among the error-handling working group.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling/issues/4...

Focusing on good error messages has permeated throughout the community. There's even the Error Handling Project Group if you weren't convinced how committed the language designers are to getting this right. There are a number of techniques we can use to make our errors more informative. Along the way, we will discuss the crates that can help.

The Error Handling Working Group is looking at potential breaking changes for embedded users. Maybe you could work within that group?

This is awesome. I'd love to have upstream support in Wasmer ( https://wasmer.io )

WebAssembly is extremely portable. WebAssembly runs on: all major web browsers, V8 runtimes like Node.js, and independent Wasm runtimes like Wasmtime, Lucet, and Wasmer.

Unfortunately cosmopolitan wouldn't work for dockerc. Cosmopolitan works as long as you only use it but container runtimes require additional features. Also containers contain arbitrary executables so not sure how that would work either...

As for WASM, this is already possible using container2wasm[0] and wasmer[1]'s ability to generate static binaries.

[0]: https://github.com/ktock/container2wasm

[1]: https://wasmer.io/

I could not find any guide how to add WASM container capability to Docker running on Colima. This guide provides a few Colima templates for exactly this, which adds WasmEdge, Wasmtime and Wasmer runtime types.

Just suggested as well Wasmer on Twitter! https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer

Looking forward to seeing the results :)

The Biome team has been incredibly fast on solving the challenge and achieving 95% compatibility with Prettier [1]

Just as a note, as it was not mentioned in the article, Wasmer [2] also participated with a $2,500 bounty to compile Biome to WASIX [3], and it has been awesome to see how their team has been working to achieve this as well... hopefully we'll get Biome running in Wasmer soon!

Keep up the great work!!

[1] https://github.com/biomejs/biome/issues/720

[2] https://wasmer.io/

[3] https://wasix.org/

It's funny how WebAssembly can help overcome most of the issues mentioned on the blogpost (packaging, configuration, portability) if addressed properly.

That's the main reason Wasmer [1] was created :)

[1] https://wasmer.io

Thanks for the mention to Wasmer.

I'll put here a link in case is useful for future readers: https://wasmer.io/