[purplesyringa]

> tl;dr: the LISP syntax is just syntax sugar. The textual format is as "stack-like" as the binary format.

Not that you're technically wrong, but I think you're begging the question.

Stack-based languages/encodings, in a colloquial sense, are equated to postfix notation, e.g. `a b +` instead of the infix `a + b`. Both LISP and textual Wasm use prefix notation, e.g. `(+ a b)`. Neither of the three is any more foundational than the other -- all notations can encode all expression trees, and postfix and prefix notations in particular have the same coding efficiency.

So sure, the LISP syntax is sugar, but for what? It's not sugar for a stack program, because prefix notation in general can't represent an arbitrary stack program; it's sugar for a mathematical expression. Which is encoded in postfix notation in binary, sure, but that's just an implementation detail, and prefix notation could've been selected when Wasm was born with little adversarial consequences.

[asibahi]

I am saying that textual wasm uses `a b +` (justl ike binary wasm) and `(+ a b)` is just a nicety.

It is explicity sugar for the stack operations, per my reading of the spec.

[purplesyringa]

My brain does not understand how one can see `(+ a b)` in text and read it as `a b +`. I suppose you can argue that moving operators to the right and removing all parentheses converts `(+ a b)` to `a b +`, sure, but that applies to pretty much any language -- next thing you'll tell me is the JavaScript expression `f(1, g(2), h(3))` actually uses stack and is just syntactic sugar for `1 2 g 3 h f`.

> It is explicity sugar for the stack operations, per my reading of the spec.

The entire Wasm text format is syntax sugar for binary Wasm, so this is kind of a vacuous truth -- if Wasm's spec says it's a stack machine, of course everything is sugar for a stack machine. But if you weren't aware of Wasm and just saw a program in textual Wasm for the first time, I don't think the idea that it's stack-based would cross your mind.

[pjjpo]

I have reread this several times but might be missing so I am begging the question, what exactly makes the LISP syntax sugar for something that isn't a stack machine? Or did I misread that?

If not, I think the OP is making the same point we all are, any program can be translated for execution on any machine - so bringing it up in the blog seems weak, which I agree with.