wasm-fizzbuzz VS wasi-libc

The framebuffer idea is used in this wasm doom port: https://github.com/diekmann/wasm-fizzbuzz/tree/main/doom

WASIX already does all the other stuff you mentioned, including in the browser. The one thing it's missing is GUI, mainly because there's no standard GUI interface in POSIX.

These are also good resources on using wasm without dependencies:

https://depth-first.com/articles/2019/10/16/compiling-c-to-w...

https://github.com/diekmann/wasm-fizzbuzz

Wow, the linked porting of DOOM to Wasm, https://github.com/diekmann/wasm-fizzbuzz/tree/main/doom, is really an excellent read as well.

WebAssembly from Scratch: From FizzBuzz to Doom\ (15 comments)

https://wasi.dev/

wow I didn't know this was a thing. thanks for filling me in!

Standardization Efforts: Projects like WASI aim to create an ABI standard that facilitates better integration between WebAssembly and the host operating system. However, WASI’s full browser support, especially for web-specific APIs like WebGPU, is still a work in progress.

Now there are projects like WASI that allows for interfacing with system resources for WASM code this allows for devs to target WASM runtime for their apps sliding the apps to run locally on any OS without any porting required. This could be a game changer in the future like Docker and containers was in the past decade.

So it doesn’t seem like there has been progress on a pseudo-random number generator function for typst, but there are multiple other ways to solve this: 1. Just don’t. Typst has this functional philosophy, there one input always produces the same output. (not an answer to your question tho) 2. Interface with a webassembly module which has a random number generator. So you could e.g. compile c to wasm and statically link a libc version. You would then just have to export the rand() function. (You could use any lang for this, which has a stdlib with a pseudo random number generator) 3. Implement your own. Random number generators are actually not that hard something like an LCG isn’t to complex. (Id provide an example but im on my phone rn)

Actually WASI[0] will be a better alternative, IIRC extism serialize and deserialize the data that you want to pass every time, adding a lot of overhead.

[0] https://wasi.dev

Actually, it was in wasi-libc: https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc/blob/main/libc-bott...

Proper isolation in C# is only now becoming a thing, with .Net support for WASI, which is essentially a WebAssembly sandbox which can be given extremely granular privileges (such as access to spefic file system directories, or an effective virtual file system). As an upside, the idea is that it should be possible to write the WASI packages in more or less anything.

Wasm Labs dev here :)

In mod_wasm, there are some differences with a pure CGI implementation. When Apache boots, it loads the configuration and initializes the WasmVM. When a new HTTP request arrives, the VM is ready so you don't need to initialize a different process to manage it.

You still need to process the request and pass the data to the Wasm module. This step is done via STDIN through the WebAssembly System Interface (WASI) implementation [0]. The same happens in the opposite direction, as the module returns the data via STDOUT.

So, the CGI pattern is still there, but it doesn't require new processes and all the code runs in a sandbox.

However this is not the only way you can run a Wasm module. In this specific case, we use CGI via WASI. In other cases, you may compile a module to fulfill a specific API, like ProxyWasm [1] to create HTTP filters for proxies like Envoy.

- [0] https://wasi.dev/

- [1] https://github.com/proxy-wasm/spec

Never done that, but I think you need this: https://wasi.dev/