tool-conventions VS infernu

> Better interoperability

AFAIK, the examples you give all target a basic C ABI [0] or can be made to target the same ABI. In Rust, it means targeting wasm32-unknown-emscripten

The Rust team is also working on a "WASM ABI"[1] which would be useful in taking advantage of stuff like multi-value returns, and other compilers could just choose to target that. More likely, the C ABI on WASM will be updated to account for missing features, and that'll be the standard for interoperability in the WASM ecosystem.

[0]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/tool-conventions/blob/main/Ba...

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/design-me...

C ABI: Compatible with the C language Application Binary Interface (ABI). So code in the language is usable from other languages. Inspired by Zig. Since compiling to WASM is desirable, WASM's C ABI could probably be used, instead of a separate implementation towards the C ABI.

There is maybe a solution. From what I found the linker will glue constructor functions and they have an associated priority. (look https://github.com/WebAssembly/tool-conventions/blob/master/Linking.md here for the "linking meta data section"). I explored the ldd/wasm source code directory and it looks like there are also destructor functions. I have not found out in which sections such functions should be placed (after 1h of exploration). Would you like to pursue? I am ok to receive pushes or even share owner ship of the repository.

Or maybe a sound type system can only be achieved either by limiting JavaScript or with a different language that compiles to JavaScript?

Very constrained. Since "constraints liberate, liberties constrain", as Bjarnason said. Inspired by Golang's minimalism, and Elm's guardrails. For learnability and maintainability. Since discipline doesn't scale (obligatory xkcd: with too much power, and the wrong nudges, all it takes is a moment of laziness/crunch-time to corrupt a strong foundation), and a complex language affords nerd-sniping kinds of puzzles, and bikeshedding and idiomatic analysis-paralysis. Counter-inspired by Haskell. The virtue of functional programming is that it subtracts features that are too-powerful/footguns (compared to OOP), namely: mutation & side-effects. The language designers should take care of and standardize all the idiomacy (natural modes of expression in the language). "Inside every big ugly language there is a small beautiful language trying to come out." -- sinelaw. The language should assume the developer is an unexperienced, lazy, (immediately) forgetful, and habitual creature. As long as software development is done by mere humans. This assumption sets the bar (the worst case), and is a good principle for DX, as well as UX. The constrained nature of the language should allow for quick learning and proficiency. Complexity should lie in the system and domain, not the language. When the language restricts what can be done, it's easier to understand what was done (a smaller space of possibilities reduces ambiguity and increases predictability, which gives speed for everyone, at a small initial learning cost). The language should avoid Pit of Despair programming, and leave the programmer in the Pit of Success: where its rules encourage you to write correct code in the first place. Inspired by Eric Lippert, but also by Rust.