Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Veedrac 2410 days ago
WASM doesn't need a JIT, it needs a compiler. Unlike a standard JIT, you don't need decompilation and instrumentation. WASM is also designed so that browsers can reuse their JS JIT as a WASM compiler. Even from a JIT perspective, the difference between a lightweight JIT (eg. LuaJIT) and the heavyweight stuff used for JS is huge, and then the gap between JS JITs and Graal is a second such chasm. This equivalence is a false one.

Graal is not designed to be verifiable the way WASM is. We learnt enough from applets to not repeat that mistake.

GC is a distraction; WASM's opt-in is much better than Graal's by-default for use as a general compilation target.

WASM wasn't chosen disingenuously. Nothing else filled the role. If something did they would have used that instead.