The Risks of WebAssembly
&gt; But we have been noticing an unfortunate trend that some developers have chosen to work contrary to the component model, creating strong links to their own host runtimes. Going this route results in platform lock-in on one hand, and the pointless re-authoring of the same code (tooled for slightly different hosts) on the other.<p>Oh dear lord. This is such a twisted narrative. The Component Model is a proposal that is only supported by one runtime out of the 20 used in production, none of them in the browser (don&#x27;t look for it in v8, SpiderMonkey or Javascript Core, Wazero, Wasmer, Wizard Engine, WAVM, ...). So if there&#x27;s anything that actually locks you in... is probably that!<p>Even when Wasmer tried to add support for it on wit-bindgen (precursor for the Component Model), the same people from the Bytecode Alliance who are working on the Component Model proposal rejected it [1]. Do they really want collaboration and not lock-in? One begins to wonder.<p>It gets even more funny when you continue reading the article and you also realize that all people in the WasmDay committee that decides what get&#x27;s in our out their CNCF conference are also part of the Bytecode Alliance. When the only competition they &quot;cheer&quot; is the one that comes from their approved friends.<p>I would highly encourage everyone to read some of the practices of the Bytecode Alliance that the AssemblyScript community has redacted, it might be eye opening! [2]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;bytecodealliance&#x2F;wit-bindgen&#x2F;issues&#x2F;306" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;bytecodealliance&#x2F;wit-bindgen&#x2F;issues&#x2F;306</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.assemblyscript.org&#x2F;standards-objections.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.assemblyscript.org&#x2F;standards-objections.html</a>