wasm-micro-runtime VS clasp

Here is what you are looking for: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime

No longer does Wasm/WASI need JS host! There are many spec-compliant runtimes built for environments from tiny embedded systems up to beefy arm/x86 racks:

- https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime

- https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime

- https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer

- https://github.com/tetratelabs/wazero

- https://github.com/extism/extism (disclaimer, my company's project - makes wasm easily embeddable into 16+ programming languages!)

The WASM core 1.1 infrastructure is already available in a very strict defined more or less guarantied compatible form on nearly any final target. Even on very small devices for embedded computing (WAMR takes less then 85kB and supports even trusted computing etc.) and in contexts, where usually no other low level development tools are available (for example within the context of Webbrowsers, sandboxed execution etc.)

WAMR and it's different AoT preprocessing and execution modes could be even more efficient. ;)

Wasm-bpf is a WebAssembly eBPF library, toolchain and runtime powered by CO-RE(Compile Once – Run Everywhere) libbpf and WAMR. It can help you build almost every eBPF programs or use cases to Wasm.

Running a Wasm application outside the browser requires an appropriate runtime that implements the WebAssembly VM and provides interfaces to the underlying system. There are a few competing solutions in this field, the most popular being wasmtime, wasmer, and WAMR.

A very interesting solution for high level interface access by less professional developers could be seen in pikascript, which works even on very small devices. WAMR is another project with similar capabilities. Both of them can be very well combined with core infrastructure realized as embedded rust code.

Seems the micro runtime also released 1.0:

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime

But why does it not have binaries compiled and ready?

I accidentally a Common Lisp that interoperates with C++ (https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp.git). We would also like to move beyond BDWGC and Whiffle looks interesting. I will reach out to you and maybe we can chat about it.

Clasp might be such a language, it seems.

https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp

/u/jeaye are you aware of CLASP? https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdXeRBbgDM

Sounds to me like CLASP; it automatically exports C++ objects to be used from Common Lisp also via llvm.

Now, the difference of compiling speed of SBCL and CCL is not so big. Look at cl-benchmark, LispWorks is really fast, CCL is on par with Allegro, SBCL is close to CCL. Or https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp/wiki/Relative-Compile-Performance-of-clasp, it depends on specific project (SBCL sometimes faster, slower, alike), overall difference is not big.

So..

"Why do you want to make Lisp more popular? If you were sucessful, what would be different in the world, and why is that desirable to you?"

Normally at this point I'd listen to the response, and ask more questions based on that. That would wind up with a very, very deep thread, so I'll break a cardinal rule and pre-guess at some answers.

This kind of question comes up pretty frequently. In many cases, I suspect the motivation behind the question is "Wow! Here's this cool tool I've discovered. I want to make something really useful with it. I want to do it as part of a community effort; share my excitement with others, share in their excitement, and know that what I'm making is useful because others find it desirable and are excited by it." The field could be cooking, sports, old machine tools, tiny homes, or demo scene. Its the fundemental driver for most content on HN, YouTube, Instructables, and such. It is a Good Thing.

If that is your motivator, then my suggestion is to find something that bugs you and fix it. You've already decided you're only interested in code, not other aspects. You said you preferred vim, but the emacs ecosystem has a very rich set of sharp edges that need filing off, and a rich set of tools with which to attack them.

One example: even after 50 years there's no open IDE which allows you to easily globally rename a Lisp identifier. I don't know about LispWorks or other proprietary environments, but you can't in emacs or vim do a right-click on "foo" in "(defun foo ()...)" and select a command which automatically renames it in all invocations. [Queue lots of "but you can..." replies here.] I don't think vim is up to the task of doing this internally. It would be possible in emacs; but would require a huge effort with lots of help from other people. If you emerged alive from that rabbit warren you'd join the company of Certified "How Hard Could it Be?" Mad Scientists such as Dr. "I just want to draw molecules" Meister [1] and "Wouldn't an OS in Lisp be Cool" Froggey [2].

[1] https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp

[2] Mezzano https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano

But also, there's a reason why most implementations readily make an effort to provide interoperability tools with a variety of runtimes. Clasp much like ABCL gives access to a whole library of other libraries trivially wrapped to interoperate with at little to no performance to cost (depending on how thin you make the wrappers, mainly).