Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pjmlp 879 days ago
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.
1 comments

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.

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.

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.