wabt VS v

https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt/blob/main/wasm2c/README.... is a straightforward way to take an untrusted application (compiled already to wasm) and turn it into C that you can embed into your application or compile to a linkable DLL. I believe this approach has been used to sandbox untrusted libraries in production by Mozilla: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/12/webassembly-and-back-again...

As long as this is happening, might as well try some of my favorites: https://github.com/wasm3/wasm3, https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt, https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime

This seems sort of like understanding machine code vs assembly; it's much easier to learn WAT and translate to/from WASM as necessary using the wabt tools [0].

Either way its super cool how simple WebAssembly is, you can really get your hands dirty and understand exactly every detail of how your program runs!

[0] https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt

You mean this? https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt/blob/main/wasm2c/README....

That seems like quite an undertaking. But at that point, It would make sense to cut out WASM entirely like https://datastation.multiprocess.io/blog/2022-05-12-sqlite-i...

The .wat file can be compiled to a .wasm using wat2wasm which is part of the WebAssembly Toolkit CLI tools:

it is in C++ https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt/blob/main/src/tools/wat2wasm.cc

I don't think you are building an application that will use Native Client technologies How to extract source code from Native Client .nexe file, migrate to WebAssembly? #1864 so that would be superfluous, and frankly, useless in your case.

I'm trying to get a basic Rust webassembly program, then porting it to C via wasm2c. The example works, but when I use wasm-bindgen and analyze it with wasm2wat, I get an import "env". The issue is that in C (wasm2c) it comes out as struct Z_env_instance_t; and I can't instantiate it (as in Z_env_instance_t env; to pass it's address to Z_wasm_client_bg_instantiate.

Their site is clearly showing the language is in beta. The V documentation also states that autofree is WIP, and to use the GC instead. This isn't a corporate created language, but looks to be a true volunteer open source effort from people around the world.

Their community, in comparison to others, even has their discussions open and open threads for criticism[1]. These

[1]https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610

V also has this https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#embed_fil...

Goroutines was the selling point for me until they decided to introduce telemetry in their toolchain; that was what forced me to stop using Golang as a whole.

About GC, I would say: if you implement C++'s RAII mechanism to replace garbage collection, then I believe this project will have a bright future.

My final question is the following: how `pcz` compares to V language, from a syntax's perspective [1]?

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v

V has the right to exist, have its supporters, and do things its own way. The creator and developers of V, from what I have seen, has always responded well to constructive criticism. Their language has discussions opened at their GitHub, unlike those for various other languages. They even have a thread for what people don't like and want improved about the language[1], again, something many other languages don't have.

A lot of what was going on initially, was coming from obvious competitors, to include being uncivil, inflammatory, and insulting. The initial "criticism" was not so much that, but false accusations of the language being a scam, vaporware, fraud, or didn't really exist. To include attacks and jealousy about its funding and having supporters. This was not any kind of "valid" criticism, that the creator or contributors of the language could reason about.

The "criticism" never died down, but rather after V was open-sourced and established itself on GitHub. The initial series of false accusations could not stand nor could the support it was getting be stopped. So, the rhetoric and targets shifted to whatever could be found to go after on the newly released alpha version of the language and its new website. In that new mix of what was being thrown at it, there were indeed some very valid criticisms, as can be found with any new language.

Constructive and valid criticism, is not the same as insults, trolling, misinformation, rivalry, or false accusations. There is clearly a difference. It's disingenuous to pretend something from one group is the same as the other, or that the intent behind what is being done is not different.

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610