Wasm doesn't make any memory safety guarantees about the usage of memory within the Wasm runtime
fyi, that was true for Wasm 1.0, but WasmGC defines managed memory structures (structs with typed fields, arrays with bounds checking, isorecursive subtyping, immutability, etc.) which provide fully verified memory safety.
Wasm has a lot of great proposals that excite me but has other disqualifying factors for me. I don't want to be required to use garbage collector, I'm concerned about how much Wasm is growing in scope with all the proposals, I'm (relatedly) concerned about portability and my ability to write my own runtime for Wasm that stays compatible in the long run, and I want a runtime that isn't browser-first, merely browser-supporting.
Comments
fyi, that was true for Wasm 1.0, but WasmGC defines managed memory structures (structs with typed fields, arrays with bounds checking, isorecursive subtyping, immutability, etc.) which provide fully verified memory safety.
Wasm has a lot of great proposals that excite me but has other disqualifying factors for me. I don't want to be required to use garbage collector, I'm concerned about how much Wasm is growing in scope with all the proposals, I'm (relatedly) concerned about portability and my ability to write my own runtime for Wasm that stays compatible in the long run, and I want a runtime that isn't browser-first, merely browser-supporting.