[jraph]

From your first link:

> Microsoft and its partners hold patents for CLI. Ecma and ISO/IEC require that all patents essential to implementation be made available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms." It is common for RAND licensing to require some royalty payment, which could be a cause for concern with Mono. As of January 2013, neither Microsoft nor its partners have identified any patents essential to CLI implementations subject to RAND terms.

With such FUD, I guess no wonder CLI didn't have wider adoption.

The open source implementation of CLI was also left to the community, the main one being proprietary. If Microsoft & co wanted an actual usable standard, they could have done a better job.

[pjmlp]

Doesn't change the fact it was done before, and it is only the most recent example, plenty of bytecode formats to explore since 1958.

[jraph]

I'm answering a comment of yours that exclusively mentions CLI. You can't blame anyone for not reusing the un-reusable. You are not contradicting me on this so let's forget about CLI, it doesn't matter it was done before since it's not a viable option or wasn't at the time WASI was being created. Or actually refute this if you think this is wrong.

Now, you are extending the scope to "all bytecode formats ever created" but that's not what I replied to and it makes your point a moving target. But fine, let's extend the scope, though I don't have a particular opinion on WASI, I haven't looked into it much.

How do you feel about the existence of multiple programming languages? CPU instruction sets? serialization formats?

Maybe WASI was specifically designed with the use case at hand and a new design was the better option. Saying previous work exists is not nearly enough. Most things are like this. They build on top of existing stuff taking inspiration from prior work.

I know nothing much about WASI. Convince me that an existing bytecode would have been better. Describe specific and detailed flaws.

Until then I'll just consider you just hate it for some unknown reason, so much you want others to join you.

[pjmlp]

I don't have time to waste teaching history of bytecodes to those that think WebAssembly is the be all, end all of bytecode formats.

Whatever you consider me to be, it is your opinion, keep it for yourself, share it with the world, whatever.

[jraph]

I've seen nobody state this. FWIW I'm most familiar with the Java bytecode of which I read the spec, not much more.

I have no particular opinion about you, in particular nothing against you.