webassembly-language-runtimes VS standards-positions

> so I wonder if there's something holding back Python + WASM

Yes. The problem is that may python libraries involve compilation of c, rust or other native languages that themselves need a WASM toolchain configured to cross compile to WASM correctly, and potentially patches to support the platform.

This toolchain support is coming though. See pyodide.org for one example.

But if you just want to grab python.wasm from somewhere and run it on the cli, take a look at something like https://github.com/vmware-labs/webassembly-language-runtimes...

WMWare labs [1] managed to compile Python/Ruby/PHP into WASM distribution. This works if you want to run the language interpreter but is limited when you want your WASM runtime (host) to run in parallel of your own program. This leads to the creation of the "reactor" concept by the community [2].

In the python WASI reactor, we load the libpython compiled for WASM and add a Rust reactor layer. Currently, it supports dynamic registration of Python lambdas and we are working on adding support for whole functions/packages.

[1] https://github.com/vmware-labs/webassembly-language-runtimes

The Python builds from the WebAssembly language runtimes [0] project target the WebAssembly System Interfaces (WASI) [1]. It allows the Python interpreter to interact with resources like the filesystem.

Many server-side Wasm runtimes supports WASI out of the box. For the browser, you need to provide a polyfill to emulate these resources like the one provided by the WASI team [2].

Regarding SQLite, these builds include libsqlite so you should be able to use it :)

- [0] https://github.com/vmware-labs/webassembly-language-runtimes

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

- [2] https://wasi.dev/polyfill/

Hello salaboy

Of course getting and gems etc gets weird in wasm..

Anyway, thanks to VMware labs for publishing interpreter wasm builds, people can play around. https://github.com/vmware-labs/webassembly-language-runtimes...

Random, but enjoy.

Hey! A WasmLabs team member here :). We're planning to port several runtimes as part of our WebAssembly Language Server initiative [1]. Porting things to Wasm+WASI is sometimes challenging. There are some deep-dives in our blog around this topic [2].

[1] https://github.com/vmware-labs/webassembly-language-runtimes...

[2] https://wasmlabs.dev/articles/php-wasm32-wasi-port/

You can read through the conversations to understand more of the context

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100#is...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336

The main struggle is around giving informed consent that explains the risks. Understandably, browsers don't want to ship a "Set my printer on fire" button.

You can check why Mozilla and Apple have opted to not support this.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28

Neither Mozilla or Webkit are satisfied that the proposal is safe by default, and contains footguns for the user that can be pretty destructive.

FWIW Mozilla updated their position on Web Serial API to "neutral" and clarified that they might be okay with enabling the API with an add-on.

https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webserial

Allowing serial but not HID would be really strange. With HID you get standard identifiers that let you filter out devices that are too dangerous for the web. With serial you get nothing. Even if you know a device is dangerous, there's no way to protect users from it.

Hasn't FireFox been dragging their asses on @scope? https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472

It took years to just convince them of the need for it. And I'm not sure anyone got convinced vs Chrome had already shipped it and Safari has it planned so they caved in.

Hard to believe FireFox used to be a leader of the modern web.

As mentioned by others, OK idea, but not a fan that this isn't standardized. After a quick search+peruse, these seem to indicate that it's not around the corner either. Happy (/hope) to be corrected.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4180

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/990

Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100

I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare.

It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.

This should have big warnings on it. Some of these are not web standards; they are features implemented unilaterally by Google in Blink that have been explicitly rejected by both Mozilla and Apple on privacy and security grounds.

Take Web Bluetooth, for example:

Mozilla:

> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

Apple:

> Here are some examples of features we have decided to not yet implement due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns

— https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/

This is Microsoft’s Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish bullshit applied to the web platform by Google. Google keeps implementing these things despite all other major rendering engines rejecting them, convinces people that they are part of the web, resulting in sites like this, then people start asking why Firefox and Safari are “missing functionality”. These are not part of the web platform, they are Google APIs that have been explicitly rejected.

Is BLE a PWA requirement? I think they explained their position pretty well here, regardless of whether I agree:

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

I took a glance at Can I Use what the difference between the last public release of Firefox and Chrome is [1] and they don't really have that big of a difference in the eyes of normal use-cases? Some of these aren't implemented purely because of privacy reasons, the proposals aren't finished yet or complexity [2].

Why would Firefox need to change to Chromium engine? The only websites I notice that don't work with Firefox is because of user-agent targetting or just putting 5-second time-outs in Youtube code on non-chrome webbrowsers [3].

Can you give some examples of websites not working on Firefox?

[1] https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+120%2Cfirefox+121&compar...

[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[3] https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-seemingly-intentionally-...