shared-everything-threads VS SemanticDiff

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 answer is: it's complicated. Which is most of the time the answer in the WASI world.

For this case it's complicated because some runtime supports https://github.com/WebAssembly/threads which mostly contains things like the spec for atomic but not the actual "threads" specs and then some runtimes (i.e wasmtime) also supports https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-threads which is one version of the threads. But a new proposal came into play https://github.com/abrown/thread-spawn so ... it's complicated.

Semantic Diff is probably the closest for now, although I don't think it uses tree-sitter.

https://semanticdiff.com/

Found via https://github.com/Wilfred/difftastic/issues/194.

I am working on SemanticDiff, a programming language aware diff that hides style-only changes, detects moved code and refactorings. I just added support for Rust and would like to know what you think!

If you're looking for a VS Code extension or a GitHub app, check out https://semanticdiff.com/. I'm a co-founder of this project.

If you prefer a CLI tool, check out https://github.com/Wilfred/difftastic. It supports more languages, but doesn't recognize when code has been replaced by an equivalent version ("invariances"). So it will show some changes (e.g. replacing a character in a string with an escape sequence) even though they are technically equivalent.

There are some tools that can separate actual code changes from reformatting changes. I am working on https://semanticdiff.com, a VS Code Extension / GitHub App that can help you with this. There is also difftastic if you prefer a CLI based solution. It supports more languages but can detect fewer types of reformatting changes.

I'm not familiar with Pijul, and haven't finished watching this presentation, but IME the problems with modern version control tools is that they still rely on comparing lines of plain text, something we've been doing for decades. Merge conflicts are an issue because our tools are agnostic about the actual content they're tracking.

Instead, the tools should be smarter and work on the level of functions, classes, packages, sentences, paragraphs, or whatever primitive makes sense for the project and file that is being changed. In the case of code bases, they need to be aware of the language and the AST of the program. For binary files, they need to be aware of the file format and its binary structure. This would allow them to show actually meaningful diffs, and minimize the chances of conflicts, and of producing a corrupt file after an automatic merge.

There has been some research in this area, and there are a few semantic diffing tools[1,2,3], but I'm not aware of this being widely used in any VCS.

Nowadays, with all the machine learning advances, the ideal VCS should also use ML to understand the change at a deeper level, and maybe even suggest improvements. If AI can write code for me, it could surely understand what I'm trying to do, and help me so that version control is entirely hands-free, instead of having to fight with it, and be constantly aware of it, as I have to do now.

I just finished watching the presentation, and Pijul seems like an iterative improvement over Git. Nothing jumped out at me like a killer feature that would make me want to give it a try. It might be because the author focuses too much on technical details, instead of taking a step back and rethinking what a modern VCS tool should look like today.

[1]: https://semanticdiff.com/

[2]: https://github.com/trailofbits/graphtage

[3]: https://github.com/GumTreeDiff/gumtree

You mean copying chunks from one file/side to the other? If that is the case, you might want to subscribe to this issue that was opened a few days ago. Since the extension does not work on a line-by-line level, it is a bit more difficult than for normal diffs. For example, what should happen if the formatting differs between both files. Should SemanticDiff copy it over as well or try to merge the changes? I will try to post an update on/in this issue soon and maybe have a discussion about the expected behavior.

Feel free to open an issue at https://github.com/Sysmagine/SemanticDiff/issues so that we can keep you updated on the progress.

Feel free to open feature requests for any languages you need: https://github.com/Sysmagine/SemanticDiff/issues