Pros of wabt

• Focuses on WebAssembly tooling, providing a comprehensive suite of tools for working with WebAssembly binaries
• Offers both command-line tools and a C API for integration into other projects
• Widely used and well-maintained by the WebAssembly community

Cons of wabt

• Primarily designed for development and tooling, not for runtime execution of WebAssembly modules
• May have a steeper learning curve for users who only need basic WebAssembly functionality
• Larger codebase and potentially higher resource usage compared to more lightweight alternatives

Code Comparison

wabt (C++):

#include "src/binary-reader.h"
#include "src/error-formatter.h"

wabt::Result ReadBinaryInterp(const void* data,
                              size_t size,
                              const ReadBinaryOptions& options,
                              Errors* errors,
                              ModuleDesc* out_module) {
  // Implementation details...
}

wasm-micro-runtime (C):

#include "wasm_runtime.h"

wasm_module_t module;
char error_buf[128];

module = wasm_runtime_load(buffer, size, error_buf, sizeof(error_buf));
if (!module) {
    printf("Error loading WebAssembly module: %s\n", error_buf);
    return 1;
}

Pros of Wasmer

• More comprehensive language support, including Rust, C/C++, Python, and others
• Advanced features like ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation for improved performance
• Extensive ecosystem with tools like Wasmer-JS for browser integration

Cons of Wasmer

• Larger runtime size and resource footprint
• Potentially more complex setup and configuration for simple use cases
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

WASM Micro Runtime:

wasm_module_t module = wasm_runtime_load(buffer, size, error_buf, error_buf_size);
wasm_module_inst_t module_inst = wasm_runtime_instantiate(module, stack_size, heap_size, error_buf, error_buf_size);

Wasmer:

let module = Module::from_binary(store, wasm_bytes)?;
let import_object = imports! {};
let instance = Instance::new(&module, &import_object)?;

Both projects aim to provide WebAssembly runtime environments, but they cater to different use cases. WASM Micro Runtime focuses on embedded systems and IoT devices, prioritizing a small footprint and efficiency. Wasmer, on the other hand, offers a more feature-rich environment suitable for a wider range of applications, including server-side and desktop scenarios.

Pros of Emscripten

• Mature ecosystem with extensive documentation and community support
• Broader compatibility with existing C/C++ codebases
• Powerful toolchain for optimizing and debugging WebAssembly output

Cons of Emscripten

• Larger runtime overhead compared to WAMR
• More complex setup and configuration process
• May produce larger WebAssembly binaries for simple projects

Code Comparison

Emscripten (compiling C to WebAssembly):

#include <emscripten.h>

EMSCRIPTEN_KEEPALIVE
int add(int a, int b) {
    return a + b;
}

WAMR (running WebAssembly):

#include <wasm_export.h>

wasm_module_t module;
wasm_module_inst_t module_inst;

// Load and instantiate WebAssembly module
wasm_runtime_load_module(buffer, size, &module, error, sizeof(error));
module_inst = wasm_runtime_instantiate(module, stack_size, heap_size, error, sizeof(error));

Both projects aim to bridge native code and WebAssembly, but they approach it from different angles. Emscripten focuses on compiling C/C++ to WebAssembly, while WAMR provides a runtime for executing WebAssembly modules. Emscripten offers a more comprehensive solution for porting existing codebases, while WAMR is lighter and more suitable for embedded systems or scenarios where a minimal WebAssembly runtime is needed.

Pros of AssemblyScript

• Familiar TypeScript-like syntax, making it easier for JavaScript developers to adopt
• Compiles directly to WebAssembly, offering better performance than JavaScript
• Rich ecosystem with tools and libraries specifically designed for AssemblyScript

Cons of AssemblyScript

• Limited compatibility with existing TypeScript/JavaScript libraries
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to more established languages
• May require additional effort to optimize for specific WebAssembly use cases

Code Comparison

AssemblyScript:

export function add(a: i32, b: i32): i32 {
  return a + b;
}

WASM-Micro-Runtime (using C):

int add(int a, int b) {
  return a + b;
}

AssemblyScript focuses on providing a TypeScript-like experience for WebAssembly development, while WASM-Micro-Runtime is a lightweight runtime for WebAssembly that supports multiple languages. AssemblyScript is ideal for web developers looking to leverage their existing JavaScript/TypeScript knowledge, whereas WASM-Micro-Runtime offers a more flexible, multi-language approach for running WebAssembly in various environments.

Pros of wasm-bindgen

• Specifically designed for Rust-to-WebAssembly interoperability
• Provides high-level abstractions for working with JavaScript APIs
• Offers automatic generation of TypeScript definitions

Cons of wasm-bindgen

• Limited to Rust-WebAssembly interactions
• May introduce overhead for simple use cases
• Requires additional build steps and tooling

Code Comparison

wasm-bindgen:

#[wasm_bindgen]
pub fn greet(name: &str) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

wasm-micro-runtime:

int32_t greet(wasm_exec_env_t exec_env, const char *name) {
    printf("Hello, %s!\n", name);
    return 0;
}

wasm-bindgen focuses on seamless Rust-JavaScript interoperability, providing a more idiomatic Rust experience. wasm-micro-runtime, on the other hand, offers a lightweight runtime for WebAssembly modules with broader language support and is better suited for embedded systems or scenarios where a minimal footprint is crucial. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as target environment, performance needs, and preferred programming language.

Pros of wasmer-python

• Specifically designed for Python integration, offering a more seamless experience for Python developers
• Provides a high-level API for easy WebAssembly module management and execution
• Supports multiple compilation backends (Cranelift, LLVM, Singlepass) for optimized performance

Cons of wasmer-python

• Limited to Python ecosystem, whereas WASM-micro-runtime supports multiple languages
• May have a larger footprint and higher resource usage compared to the lightweight WASM-micro-runtime
• Potentially slower startup time due to its more comprehensive feature set

Code Comparison

wasmer-python:

from wasmer import Store, Module, Instance

store = Store()
module = Module(store, wasm_bytes)
instance = Instance(module)
result = instance.exports.sum(5, 37)

WASM-micro-runtime:

wasm_module_t module = wasm_runtime_load(wasm_file_buf, wasm_file_size, error_buf, sizeof(error_buf));
wasm_module_inst_t module_inst = wasm_runtime_instantiate(module, stack_size, heap_size, error_buf, sizeof(error_buf));
wasm_exec_env_t exec_env = wasm_runtime_create_exec_env(module_inst, stack_size);
wasm_runtime_call_wasm(exec_env, func_name, argc, argv);

The code examples highlight the difference in API design and language focus between the two projects.