It isn’t interesting for being bytecode. Rather for being the first universal sandboxed runtime for the browser and elsewhere. Being able to write in many languages and compile to wasm targets is awesome. Safety guarantees and performance are both great too. And it can run in tiny environments.
Except that it isn’t really the first iteration of any of those things. Java did most of 'em more than a quarter century ago: browser-embedable, multiple languages could target the JVM, and, yes, sandboxed—the only issue was startup (not runtime) performance. That wasm doesn’t share those startup performance woes makes it useful, but not revolutionary.
As for tiny environments, a typical desktop system from around 1999 is somewhat similar to a Pi Zero W in terms of ability.
Speaking based on my own PC in that era: it had 512MB RAM and the video card was capable of running FFVII PC version with hardware drivers, so there was some very modest and primitive 3D capability buried in there somewhere. I believe the CPU was a ~500 MHz P3, so I’ll grant you that one, and the one about RAM speed. Well, I did only claim they were “somewhat similar”.
The sandboxes are different. The embeddable Java plugin sandbox was a bit different and susceptible to confused deputy and other attacks. So yeah, I guess you can say it is iterative but they’re kind of worlds apart. You can run thousands of wasm modules in a single process and have them all be completely isolated. Its performance and security gains, portability, and usability are all superb.
I guess I can’t really defend it well, but I think it is interesting and important.
It isn’t interesting for being bytecode. Rather for being the first universal sandboxed runtime for the browser and elsewhere. Being able to write in many languages and compile to wasm targets is awesome. Safety guarantees and performance are both great too. And it can run in tiny environments.
Except that it isn’t really the first iteration of any of those things. Java did most of 'em more than a quarter century ago: browser-embedable, multiple languages could target the JVM, and, yes, sandboxed—the only issue was startup (not runtime) performance. That wasm doesn’t share those startup performance woes makes it useful, but not revolutionary.
As for tiny environments, a typical desktop system from around 1999 is somewhat similar to a Pi Zero W in terms of ability.
I would imagine a Pi Zero is significantly more powerful than a 1999 desktop system.
Pi zero has a 1Ghz single core and 512 MB RAM. 1999 would be a P3, which started out from 500 MHz and I believe RAM was less 512 MB at that points.
And that’s just high level figures, that ignore faster RAM speed, massive improvements in IPC / CPU microarchitecture.
I would even speculate the hypothetical 3D capabilities of 1999 desktop could probably be simulated in software.
Speaking based on my own PC in that era: it had 512MB RAM and the video card was capable of running FFVII PC version with hardware drivers, so there was some very modest and primitive 3D capability buried in there somewhere. I believe the CPU was a ~500 MHz P3, so I’ll grant you that one, and the one about RAM speed. Well, I did only claim they were “somewhat similar”.
The sandboxes are different. The embeddable Java plugin sandbox was a bit different and susceptible to confused deputy and other attacks. So yeah, I guess you can say it is iterative but they’re kind of worlds apart. You can run thousands of wasm modules in a single process and have them all be completely isolated. Its performance and security gains, portability, and usability are all superb.
I guess I can’t really defend it well, but I think it is interesting and important.
Maybe we should get away from “browser than can run apps” and move towards “app sandbox that also happens to render html”.