How is wasm better than C bindings?

gavinray 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many languages don't have ergonomic experiences for working with C ABI's without explicit wrapper code.

Hell, Node.js didn't even get this ability until LAST MONTH:

You'd have to write a second library to interface the C ABI with Node via NAPI just to consume it.

bluejekyll 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

WASM is platform independent.

What do you mean by C bindings? C bindings to what?

C bindings to a C implementation

	▲	yung_lean 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This isn't using WASM to solve the "how can I make my file format compatible with more programming languages?" problem. This is trying to solve the "how can I add new encodings to my file format without making everyone update their code?" problem. The former would rightly be solved with C bindings that anyone can link with if they want. The latter might not seem like a big deal, but it's been the main blocker advancing the parquet format. Most people end up not caring about new advanced encodings and just write parquet files with the most compatible feature set.

coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

C bindings are not platform independent, nor do they come with a runtime and a sandbox, among other things. Apples to oranges.