The component model is what unlocks relatively type-safe interop between modules written in different languages. Given that Wasm is a runtime target for many languages, this is an entirely appropriate and useful goal.

If you have a host system where you want to expose APIs in an language-agnostic way, IDLs are the best way to do that.

You're also conflating the core WebAssembly work with the WASI work. There is some overlap in people, but WASI is developed separately.

▲

lenkite 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why was the component model not expressed in LISP syntax like the way WAT is ? Why have yet another custom IDL language with bespoke parsing rules ?

	▲	phickey 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There is a wat (s expression) syntax for the component model. The problem with the wat syntax for both Wasm and the component model is they’re a reflection of a binary format, and therefore are terrible for writing by hand. They’re designed to be written by tools, and the text format is just to help you understand the binary format. I’ve written Wasm and component model wat extensively over the last decade to develop tests for Wasmtime, and even for an expert it’s a bad experience. Wit syntax is easy to read and write by hand. There are high quality parsers that can transform it to and from the binary or wat format as needed, and code generators for a wide range of languages. It’s a way, way better experience in every way to deal with wit compared to the wat format.