quickjs-emscripten VS go

Based on your comment below I think you figured out the difference - but if you're looking to execute JS, you can pick between ShadowRealm (where available, or using a polyfill) or my library quickjs-emscripten.

Pros of quickjs-emscripten over ShadowRealm:

- You can use quickjs today in any browser with WASM. ShadowRealm isn't available yet, and polyfills have had security issues in the past. See https://www.figma.com/blog/an-update-on-plugin-security/

- In ShadowRealm eval, untrusted code can consume arbitrary CPU cycles. With QuickJS, you can control the CPU time used during an `eval` using an [interrupt handler] that's called periodically during the eval.

- In ShadowRealm eval, untrusted code can allocate arbitrary amounts of memory. With QuickJS, you can control both the [stack size] and the [heap size] available inside the runtime.

- quickjs-emscripten can do interesting things with custom module loaders and facades that allow synchronous code inside the runtime to call async code on the host.

Pros of ShadowRealm over QuickJS:

- ShadowRealm will (presumably?) execute code using your native runtime, probably v8, JavaScriptCore, or SpiderMonkey. Quickjs is orders of magnitude slower than JIT'd javascript performance of v8 etc. It's also slower than v8/JSC's interpreters, although not by a huge amount. See [benchmarks] from 2019.

- You can easily call and pass values to ShadowRealm imported functions. Talking to quickjs-emscripten guest code requires a lot of fiddly and manual object building.

- Overall the quickjs(-emscripten) API is verbose, and requires manual memory management of references to values inside the quickjs runtime.

[interrupt handler]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...

[stack size]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...

[heap size]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...

[benchmarks]: https://bellard.org/quickjs/bench.html

The thing I want to achieve with WebAssembly is still proving a lot harder than I had anticipated.

I want to be able to take strings of untrusted code provided by users and execute them in a safe sandbox.

I have all sorts of things I want this for - think custom templates for a web application, custom workflow automation scripts (Zapier-style), running transformations against JSON data.

When you're dealing with untrusted code you need a really robust sandbox. WebAssembly really should be that sandbox.

I'd like to support Python, JavaScript and maybe other languages too. I want to take a user-provided string of code in one of those languages and execute that in a sandbox with a strict limit on both memory usage and time taken (so I can't be crashed by a "while True" loop). If memory or time limit are exceeded, I want to get an exception which I can catch and return an error message to the user.

I've been exploring options for this for quite a while now. The furthest I've got was running Pyodide inside of Deno: https://til.simonwillison.net/deno/pyodide-sandbox

Surprisingly I've not found a good pattern for running a JavaScript interpreter in a WASM sandbox yet. https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten looks promising but I've not found the right recipe to call it from server-side Python or Deno yet.

Can Extism help with this? I'm confident I'm not the only person who's looking for a solution here!

"Safely execute untrusted Javascript in your Javascript, and execute synchronous code that uses async functions" quickjs-emscripten, NPM

This maybe, as a start?

https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten

QuickJS Running in WebAssembly\ (17 comments)

The library was inspired by Figma’s blog posts about their plug-in system: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten#background

If you need to call into user-generated Javascript synchronously or have greater control over the sandbox environment, you can use WebAssembly to run a Javascript interpreter: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten#quickjs-emscr...

QuickJS in WebAssembly is much slower than your browser's native Javascript runtime, but possibly faster than async calls using postMessage. As an added bonus, it can make async functions in the host appear to be synchronous inside the sandbox using asyncify: https://emscripten.org/docs/porting/asyncify.html.

You can use One Weird Trick with generator functions to make your code "generic" over synchronicity. I use this technique to avoid needing to implement both sync and async versions of some functions in my quickjs-emscripten library.

The great part about this technique as a library author is that unlike choosing to use a Promise return type, this technique is invisible in my public API. I can write a function like `export function coolAlgorithm(getData: (request: I) => O | Promise): R | Promise`, and we get automatic performance improvement if the user's function happens to return synchronously, without mystery generator stuff showing up in the function signature.

Helper to make a function that can be either sync or async: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/ff211447...

Uses: https://cs.github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten?q=yield*+l...

This seems like a pretty nice, recently enabled way of getting a sandboxed js environment: QuickJS compiled to WASM: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten.

There used to be the GO FIPS branch :

https://github.com/golang/go/tree/dev.boringcrypto/misc/bori...

But it looks dead.

And it looks like https://github.com/golang-fips/go as well.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by acknowledgement, but here are some counterexamples:

- A proposal for sum types by a Go team member: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/57644

- The community proposal with some comments from the Go team: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19412

Here are some excerpts from the latest Go survey [1]:

- "The top responses in the closed-form were learning how to write Go effectively (15%) and the verbosity of error handling (13%)."

- "The most common response mentioned Go’s type system, and often asked specifically for enums, option types, or sum types in Go."

I think the problem is not the lack of will on the part of the Go team, but rather that these issues are not easy to fix in a way that fits the language and doesn't cause too many issues with backwards compatibility.

[1]: https://go.dev/blog/survey2024-h1-results

Now, I’m not going to use C++ again; I left that chapter years ago, and it’s not going to happen. C++ isn’t memory safe and easy to use and would require extended time for developers to adapt. Rust is the new kid on the block, but I’ve heard mixed opinions about its developer experience, and there aren’t many libraries around it yet. LLRD is too new for my taste, but **Go** caught my attention.

Generative AI development has been democratised, thanks to powerful Machine Learning models (specifically Large Language Models such as Claude, Meta's LLama 2, etc.) being exposed by managed platforms/services as API calls. This frees developers from the infrastructure concerns and lets them focus on the core business problems. This also means that developers are free to use the programming language best suited for their solution. Python has typically been the go-to language when it comes to AI/ML solutions, but there is more flexibility in this area. In this post you will see how to leverage the Go programming language to use Vector Databases and techniques such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) with langchaingo. If you are a Go developer who wants to how to build learn generative AI applications, you are in the right place!

net/http: add methods and path variables to ServeMux patterns Discussion about ServeMux enhancements

Make sure you have Go installed https://go.dev/.

The Go Programming Language

When Go first shipped, it was already well-documented that the only stable ABI on some platforms was via dynamic libraries (such as libc) provided by said platforms. Go knowingly and deliberately ignored this on the assumption that they can get away with it. And then this happened:

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/16606

If that's not "getting burned", I don't know what is. "Trying to provide a nice feature" is an excuse, and it can be argued that it is a valid one, but nevertheless they knew that they were using an unstable ABI that could be pulled out from under them at any moment, and decided that it's worth the risk. I don't see what that has to do with "not being as broadly compatible as they had hoped", since it was all known well in advance.