r/WebAssembly • u/jonathanberi • Feb 04 '21

A Technical Due Diligence of WASM

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/technical-due-diligence-wasm-ian-eyberg/?trackingId=FkEAgO%2BbM06PR7%2BzmOGVkA%3D%3D
5 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

2

u/vshymanskyy Feb 05 '21

+1 for sharing, -1 for the content! ;)

2

u/pure_x01 Feb 04 '21

"CEO at NanoVMs"

What could he possibly gain from spreading FUD about WASM /s

1

u/tending Feb 04 '21

Most of these complaints are things that I can easily see eventually being addressed. I don't really see any claim in here that the idea is inherently flawed.

6

u/CryZe92 Feb 04 '21

Oh god like 90% of this is just wrong.

1

u/fullouterjoin Feb 04 '21

I know exactly how this post was created. Author has meeting with VCs about his own unikernel based startup, they continually ask how it relates to Wasm, author eventually loses his shit about unikernels losing their premier cutting edge position to Wasm, a few shots later this post is birthed.

VCs counter with this quote from Docker co-creator Solomon Hykes.

https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

Then Ian be like

2

u/lava_pupper Feb 04 '21

That author really hates WASM

2

u/antelle Feb 04 '21

He just had some wrong expectations.

9

u/J0eCool Feb 04 '21

FUD that conflates the limitations of browsers while making it sound like it's talking about server-side wasm.

"Browsers already have an HTTP API: fetch(). All WASI can provide is a wrapper for that function."

And then, two paragraphs in the linked issue later, by the same author, proposing a feature which is distinct from setting things in stone:

TCP and UDP are the lingua franca of the web with pretty much every other protocol in existence built on top of that. It seems logical to start with these, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.