wasmtime VS Oberon

Just a documentation change, fortunately:

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/commits?author=...

They've submitted little documentation tweaks to other projects, too, for example:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/overview/whats-new-cpp...

I don't know whether this is a formerly-legitimate open source contributor who went rogue, or a deep-cover persona spreading innocuous-looking documentation changes around to other projects as a smokescreen.

WebAssembly is extremely portable. WebAssembly runs on: all major web browsers, V8 runtimes like Node.js, and independent Wasm runtimes like Wasmtime, Lucet, and Wasmer.

cpu: 4 disk: 60 memory: 12 arch: host hostname: colima autoActivate: true forwardAgent: false # I only tested this with 'docker', not 'containerd': runtime: docker kubernetes: enabled: false version: v1.24.3+k3s1 k3sArgs: [] network: address: true dns: [] dnsHosts: host.docker.internal: host.lima.internal # Added: # - containerd-snapshotter: true (meaning containerd will be used for pulling images) docker: features: buildkit: true containerd-snapshotter: true vmType: vz rosetta: true mountType: virtiofs mountInotify: false cpuType: host # This provisioning script installs build dependencies, WasmEdge and builds the WASM runtime shims for containerd. # NOTE: this takes a LOOONG time! provision: - mode: system script: | [ -f /etc/docker/daemon.json ] && echo "Already provisioned!" && exit 0 echo "Installing system updates:" apt-get update -y apt-get upgrade -y echo "Installing WasmEdge and runwasi build dependencies:" # NOTE: packages curl, git and python3 already installed: apt-get install -y make gcc build-essential pkgconf libtool libsystemd-dev libprotobuf-c-dev libcap-dev libseccomp-dev libyajl-dev libgcrypt20-dev go-md2man autoconf automake criu pkg-config libdbus-glib-1-dev libelf-dev libclang-dev libzstd-dev protobuf-compiler apt-get clean -y - mode: user script: | [ -f /etc/docker/daemon.json ] && echo "Already provisioned!" && exit 0 # # Setting vars for this script: # # Which WASM runtimes to install (wasmedge, wasmtime and wasmer are supported): WASM_RUNTIMES="wasmedge wasmtime wasmer" # # Location of the containerd config file: CONTAINERD_CONFIG="/etc/containerd/config.toml" # # Target location for the WASM runtimes and containerd shims ($TARGET/bin and $TARGET/lib): TARGET="/usr/local" # # Install rustup: # echo "Installing rustup for building runwasi:" curl --proto '=https' --tlsv1.2 -sSf https://sh.rustup.rs | sh -s -- --default-toolchain none -y source "$HOME/.cargo/env" # # Install selected WASM runtimes and containerd shims: # [[ -z "${WASM_RUNTIMES// /}" ]] && echo "No WASM runtimes selected - exiting!" && exit 0 git clone https://github.com/containerd/runwasi echo "Installing WASM runtimes and building containerd shims: ${WASM_RUNTIMES}:" sudo mkdir -p /etc/containerd/ containerd config default | sudo tee $CONTAINERD_CONFIG >/dev/null for runtimeName in $WASM_RUNTIMES; do case $runtimeName in wasmedge) echo "Installing WasmEdge:" curl -sSfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/master/utils/install.sh | sudo bash -s -- -p $TARGET echo echo "`wasmedge -v` installed!" ;; wasmtime) echo "Installing wasmtime:" curl -sSfL https://wasmtime.dev/install.sh | bash sudo cp .wasmtime/bin/* ${TARGET}/bin/ rm -rf .wasmtime echo "`wasmtime -V` installed!" ;; wasmer) echo "Installing wasmer:" curl -sSfL https://get.wasmer.io | sh sudo cp .wasmer/bin/* ${TARGET}/bin/ sudo cp .wasmer/lib/* ${TARGET}/lib/ rm -rf .wasmer echo "`wasmer -V` installed!" ;; *) echo "ERROR: WASM runtime $runtimeName is not supported!" exit 1 ;; esac cd runwasi echo "Building containerd-shim-${runtimeName}:" cargo build -p containerd-shim-${runtimeName} --release echo "Installing containerd-shim-${runtimeName}-v1:" sudo install ./target/release/containerd-shim-${runtimeName}-v1 ${TARGET}/bin sudo ln -sf ${TARGET}/bin/containerd-shim-${runtimeName}-v1 ${TARGET}/bin/containerd-shim-${runtimeName}d-v1 sudo ln -sf ${TARGET}/bin/containerd-shim-${runtimeName}-v1 ${TARGET}/bin/containerd-${runtimeName}d echo "containerd-shim-${runtimeName} installed." cd .. echo "[plugins.\"io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri\".containerd.runtimes.${runtimeName}]" | sudo tee -a $CONTAINERD_CONFIG >/dev/null echo " runtime_type = \"io.containerd.${runtimeName}.v1\"" | sudo tee -a $CONTAINERD_CONFIG >/dev/null done echo "containerd WASM runtimes and shims installed." # # Restart the systemctl services to pick up the installed shims. # NOTE: We need to 'stop' docker because at this point the actual daemon.json config is not yet provisioned: # echo "Restarting/reloading docker/containerd services:" sudo systemctl daemon-reload sudo systemctl restart containerd sudo systemctl stop docker sshConfig: true mounts: [] env: {}

When you say wasm container, you mean something like wasmtime that provides a non-browser wasm runtime?

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime

We can't run this directly from the command line unless we install some runtime like wasmtime:

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

Thanks for the question!

Spin could definitely run in more places than what we have pre-built binaries for. Specifically, we could run on all platforms Wasmtime supports today (https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/releases/tag/v1...), including RISC and S390X, for example.

And while we have been experimenting a bit with running Spin on RISC, we haven't really had the bandwidth or requirement to build a production build for those yet.

Are you interested in a specific operating system or CPU architecture? Would love to understand your scenario.

> I used to think we'd eventually get to capability based security, but now I see we'll always be stuck with application permission flags, the almost worthless bastard cousin, instead.

My hope is that WASI will introduce capability based security to the mainstream on non-mobile computers [0] - it might just take some time for them to get it right. (And hopefully no half-baked status-quo-reinforcing regressive single—runtime-backed alternatives win in the meantime.)

[0]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/docs/...

WasmTime finished finished the RFC for the implementation details in June: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/5032

[3]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/2611

> Sure there's a small overhead to smart pointers

Not so small, and it has the potential to significantly speed down an application when not used wisely. Here are e.g. some measurements where the programmer used C++11 and did everything with smart pointers: https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet/issues/80#issuecomm.... There was a speed down between factor 2 and 10 compared with the C++98 implementation. Also remember that smart pointers create memory leaks when used with circular references, and there is an additional memory allocation involved with each smart pointer.

> Garbage collection has an overhead too of course

The Boehm GC is surprisingly efficient. See e.g. these measurements: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase.... The same benchmark suite as above is compared with different versions of Mono (using the generational GC) and the C code (using Boehm GC) generated with my Oberon compiler. The latter only is 20% slower than the native C++98 version, and still twice as fast as Mono 5.

Great, thanks!

There are books online for free, e.g.

https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ProgInOberonWR.pdf

and https://ssw.jku.at/Research/Books/Oberon2.pdf

Oberon+ is a superset of Oberon 90 and Oberon-2. Here is more information: https://oberon-lang.github.io/, and here is the current language specification: https://github.com/oberon-lang/specification/blob/master/The.... I already had valuable feedback here on HN concerning the channel extensions. Further research brought me to the conclusion, that Oberon+ should support both, channels and also monitors, because even in Go, the sync package primitives are used twice as much as channels. Mutexes and condition variables can be emulated with channels (I tried my luck here: https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-emulate-mutexes-and-conditi...), but for efficiency reasons I think monitors should be directly supported in the language as well, even if it might collide with the goal of simplicity.

Feel free to comment here or e.g. in https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/discussions/45.

> Does anyone know why Wirth never modernized his style?

Readability. It's easier to read the source code with uppercase keywords. (I think Wirth once said that code is written once but read many times). See this source code - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem... - to get an idea of this (the uppercase keywords allow you to easily scan the blocks of code). Ofcourse, one can claim that the same can be achieved better today with colour-coded keywords.

If I remember right, the Oberon+ IDE - https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon - gives you an option to disable this and use lowercase keywords.

> gain a deep understanding of it .. generate smaller subsets of the system

You can use the OberonViewer for this purpose with the original source code, or the Oberon IDE with a version of the Project Oberon System which runs with SDL on all platforms, see https://github.com/rochus-keller/oberon/#binary-versions and https://github.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem/tree/FFI

> Regardless, which one is more likely to be ported to a different architecture in the future?

Not sure I understand the question. I'm talking about CPU architectures. The current implementation is in x86 assembler. So if you want to run it on AMD64 or ARM, then you have to replace all assembler files, in the present case probable the full source code.

> what are the comparative performance benchmarks of the low-level language versus the high-level language?

I don't have any measurements. But consider that many operating systems are implemented in C (e.g. Linux) with only isolated parts in assembler, so it is easier to port to other architectures. Linux apparently is fast enough and available for nearly every CPU. Oberon in contrast to C is garbage collected, which also affects performance. I have measurements comparing the same benchmark suite implemented in C++ and in Oberon, where the former is about 22% faster (see https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase...).

I actually had a similar problem some years ago and finally moved away from LLVM because of complexity, continuous research effort and performance. My current Oberon+ implementation works like this: the CIL code generator together with Mono is used during development, integrated with the IDE, using the debugging features integrated in Mono; to deploy the application and to gain another factor 2 of performance C99 instead of CIL can be generated and compiled with any compatible toolchain. Here are some performance measurements: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcases/Are-we-fast-yet/Are-we-fast-yet_results_linux.pdf. Compiling to CIL is very fast and the time Mono needs to compile and run is barely noticable.

> annoying aspects was requiring the .NET runtime ... OpenJDK is a blessed implementation in a way that Mono never was

Which is unjustified, because Mono CLR is just a single executable less than 5 MB which you can download and run without a complicated installation process (see e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/#binary-versions ). AOT compilation on the other hand is a huge and complex installation depending on a lot of stuff including LLVM, and the resulting executables are not really smaller than the CLR + mscorlib + app.