> It is as if a newer generation never bothered to learn about what came before.
I'd be very surprised if you could find a significant number of people who both 1. care about wasm and 2. had never heard of previous VMs that could run multiple languages.
WASM is cool. That doesn't mean that earlier takes on the same idea weren't also cool. It also doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to build a new take on the idea, and you can be 100% sure that the people involved in implementing WASM knew about the CLR and the JVM, and probably even things like the UCSD p-System.
Software engineers are far too keen to disparage new implementations of old ideas, or even new ideas - "it's not novel - it can't do anything a turing machine doesn't do".
I'd be very surprised if you could find a significant number of people who both 1. care about wasm and 2. had never heard of previous VMs that could run multiple languages.
WASM is cool. That doesn't mean that earlier takes on the same idea weren't also cool. It also doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to build a new take on the idea, and you can be 100% sure that the people involved in implementing WASM knew about the CLR and the JVM, and probably even things like the UCSD p-System.
Software engineers are far too keen to disparage new implementations of old ideas, or even new ideas - "it's not novel - it can't do anything a turing machine doesn't do".