Our great sponsors
-
-
crypto
Cryptographic operations in WASM, C, Typescript for Nodejs and the browser. (by deliberative)
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
design-principles
A small-but-growing set of design principles collected by the TAG while reviewing specifications
-
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
> But we have been noticing an unfortunate trend that some developers have chosen to work contrary to the component model, creating strong links to their own host runtimes. Going this route results in platform lock-in on one hand, and the pointless re-authoring of the same code (tooled for slightly different hosts) on the other.
Oh dear lord. This is such a twisted narrative. The Component Model is a proposal that is only supported by one runtime out of the 20 used in production, none of them in the browser (don't look for it in v8, SpiderMonkey or Javascript Core, Wazero, Wasmer, Wizard Engine, WAVM, ...). So if there's anything that actually locks you in... is probably that!
Even when Wasmer tried to add support for it on wit-bindgen (precursor for the Component Model), the same people from the Bytecode Alliance who are working on the Component Model proposal rejected it [1]. Do they really want collaboration and not lock-in? One begins to wonder.
It gets even more funny when you continue reading the article and you also realize that all people in the WasmDay committee that decides what get's in our out their CNCF conference are also part of the Bytecode Alliance. When the only competition they "cheer" is the one that comes from their approved friends.
I would highly encourage everyone to read some of the practices of the Bytecode Alliance that the AssemblyScript community has redacted, it might be eye opening! [2]
[1] https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wit-bindgen/issues/306
[2] https://www.assemblyscript.org/standards-objections.html
From my recent experience with WebAssembly developing a cryptographic library for Nodejs and the browser [1], I have to say that once someone needs to use memory allocation, typed arrays from JS to WASM (I did not manage to make the opposite work) etc. it quickly becomes obvious that there is lack of documentation and build system fragmentation that only hurts community growth IMO. If I was less motivated to finish the undertaking, I would just give up and go with libsodium-wrappers or tweetnacljs.
I started with clang targeting wasm32-unknown-unknown-wasm as my build system but this just did not work with malloc/free, unless I was targeting WASI, but if I targeted WASI I would not be able to run the module in the browser except with a polyfill that was hard to set up with C/TS stack. I ended up with emscripten because it was importing the module with all the right helper functions but there I was getting memory errors on debug mode but not in production. I needed to pass the Uint8Arrays from JS to WASM in a very specific way (with HEAP8), otherwise the pointers were not working properly, but I was not able to find this in the documentation. I only found out from a stackoverflow comment somewhere after two weeks of brain melting (why would Uint8Array(memory.buffer, offset, len).byteOffset not work?).
After I compiled the project successfully and the JS was giving the correct results, I decided to compile with -s SINGLE_FILE command in order to make the package as portable as possible, but this increased the size significantly because it translates the bytes into base64 that are then converted into WASM module from JS. A package manager of a compiled language that outputs cross-env JS that solves these problems automagically would be, IMO again, a game changer for the ecosystem. I believe this is what AssemblyScript tries to achieve but I honestly could not make it work for my project after experimenting with it for one or two days.
I get that a lot of the problems come from the incompatibility of browser and Nodejs APIs and different agendas from the various stakeholders, but I would very much like to see these differences be reconciled so that we can have a good developer experience for cross-platform WASM modules, which will lead to more high-performance components for JS, which is a programming language that affects so many people.
[1] https://github.com/deliberative/crypto
I am skeptical of WebAssembly and component-model myself, but that AssemblyScript page seems alarmist and as can be seen in several issues, dcodeIO (from the AssemblyScript community) was definitely not behaving in good faith: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/322
It seems most of the complaints are that selecting UTF-8 as a primary string encoding is "against the practices of the web", which seems patently absurd. I was definitely expecting more along the lines of object models integrating into component‐model, rather than mass-tagging people because of string encodings.
> dcodeIO (from the AssemblyScript community) was definitely not behaving in good faith
I certainly disagree with that take. I only see one person being frustrated because his concerns were being thrown under the rug as "non important", I would recommend you to read on dcode's blog to learn more about how the timeline happened [1]. There are always things to improve regarding how we communicate, of course, but those should not be used as a weapon to attack or dismiss someone but as means to improve.
It's also important to note that a few months after, the Wasm committee realized of the mistake and actually tried to solve it with the Wasm Stringref proposal [2].
The issue is not about if using UTF-8 or UTF-16 is the way to go, but how disagreement is being handled in what's supposed to be an open community
[1] https://dcode.io/#webassembly
[2] https://github.com/WebAssembly/stringref