Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 02 2019, @08:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the java++ dept.

Mozilla Extends WebAssembly Beyond the Browser with WASI:

Mozilla’s WebAssembly started as an experiment, almost a question: is it possible to run arbitrary code in a browser without breaking the browser sandbox? A side benefit would be faster web applications that would outperform current web technologies, allowing developers to bring existing desktop applications to the web.

[...]Since its initial launch, WebAssembly has been adopted by all the major browsers, with support from Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, and Apple, who’ve all contributed code.

Best thought of as a definition of a virtual machine, WebAssembly works with the browser’s JavaScript engine to run code at speeds that compare well with native code. Instead of JavaScript’s byte code approach, it takes code written in familiar languages like C and C#, and converts it first to an assembly language-like bytecode before a final compilation as binary. WebAssembly executables are compiled before being delivered to browsers, making them a compact and efficient way of adding complex functionality to web applications.

[...]Experiments with WebAssembly outside the browser are all very well, but if it’s going to be a tool that supports cross-platform as well as cross-browser development, it needs to have new standards built around it. Mozilla recently announced the start of such an effort, with the first release of WASI: the WebAssembly System Interface.

You can perhaps consider WASI as the boundary between system level code running on the host platform and applications running in user mode.

Where WebAssembly works as an implementation of a virtual processor, WASI goes a step further and offers developers an entire conceptual operating system. With a virtual processor, there’s only one target architecture, and the JavaScript engine can handle translation between its implementation and ARM, Intel, Power, or whatever hardware you have. WASI does the same, offering WebAssembly programs its own low-level implementations of common OS functions, that are then translated into OS calls via the host JavaScript engine. Target WASI in your code, and you’re able to produce applications that run identically on macOS, on Windows, on UNIX, and more, even on mobile operating systems.

[...]It’s also important to note that you won’t be writing code that accesses the WASI interfaces directly. Instead, these will be what’s implemented in the WebAssembly equivalents of the standard libraries we use in most common languages. That way we’ll know that if we’re running a C application in WebAssembly through WASI a printf command will write to a console, no matter if it’s on Windows or UNIX. WASI implements the interfaces for WebAssembly compilers and the underlying JavaScript engine handles the actual system calls to whatever OS it’s running on. You don’t need to install the appropriate standard libraries for each target OS for your code, and you only need to compile once.

[...]There are already three implementations of WASI, Mozilla’s own implementation and a polyfill that will allow anyone to experiment with WASI in a browser. Perhaps the most interesting from a developer standpoint coming from edge delivery network Fastly. Its Lucet WebAssembly compiler is now also a runtime, with an open source release on GitHub. Currently used in Terrarium, Fastly’s experimental edge service, it’s seen as a fast alternative to JavaScript running on Google’s V8 engine.

In a blog post, Pat Hickey, a senior software engineer at Fastly, describes Lucet as able to “instantiate WebAssembly modules in under 50 microseconds, with just a few kilobytes of memory overhead. By comparison, Chromium’s V8 engine takes about 5 milliseconds, and tens of megabytes of memory overhead, to instantiate JavaScript or WebAssembly programs.”


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @08:49PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @08:49PM (#823779)

    From a user perspective, web apps are safer. Installing software entails risk. From a developer perspective, you don't have to worry that new OS versions will kill your app. Are you going to use Qt to target Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Windows Phone? And then deal with all the app stores? Easier to just make a web app.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @08:58PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @08:58PM (#823784)

    "you don't have to worry that new OS versions will kill your app"

    no, you'll have to worry that the world will change and the browser of the day will croak at the code you're pushing down
    the throat of its now incompatible VM

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:34AM (#823874)

      You say that as if browser incompatibility isn't a problem NOW.
      Uh, have you tried running it in Chrome? Works for me!!

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday April 03 2019, @05:52PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 03 2019, @05:52PM (#824170) Journal

      Browser compatibility and standardization has pretty much stabilized.

      --
      To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
  • (Score: 2) by DrkShadow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:06AM

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:06AM (#823901)

    you don't have to worry that new OS versions will kill your app

    You forgot the letters b, r, w, e, and r.

    https://kotaku.com/google-updates-chrome-breaks-tons-of-web-games-1825899640 [kotaku.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03 2019, @04:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03 2019, @04:52AM (#823971)

    From a user perspective, web apps are safer. Installing software entails risk.

    This might perceptually be so but it's the running of random software that poses the risk, no difference whether it's native or "web app" (= be it either JS or WA)

  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 03 2019, @06:57AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday April 03 2019, @06:57AM (#823993) Journal

    From a user perspective, web apps are safer.

    Well, they superficially seem safer. But the illusion of security is worse than insecurity you know about.

    When all your stuff is online, web apps are no more safe than local apps are when all your stuff is local.

    On the other hand, the ability of the web to have apps makes the web as a whole insecure. When the web was just a document delivery system, it was very secure. Not absolutely, as there's no such thing as absolute security. But the security risks were negligible. Today, even web pages that apparently just deliver documents may pose a security risk.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.