Comment by DonHopkins
5 years ago
Earlier I posted an article by Don Box comparing SOM and COM, and I mentioned that WebAssembly is going through a similar evolution, and might benefit from some of the lessons of COM and SOM:
COM vs SOM: The Component Object Model and Some Other Model (1999) (archive.org)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20266627
>DonHopkins on June 24, 2019 | prev | next [–]
>This article comparing SOM and COM was written by Don Box. (first archived in January 1999, but doesn't say when published): The Component Object Model and Some Other Model: A comparison of technologies revisited yet again:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717416
>DonHopkins on April 22, 2019 | parent | context | favorite | on: Mozilla announces WebAssembly System Interface, wh...
>>"WebAssembly has been designed to scale from tiny devices to large server farms or CDNs..." What's ironic is that the "tiny devices" and even "high end professional desktop workstation and server devices" that Java was originally designed to run on when it was started in 1990 were MUCH tinier than the devices considered "tiny" today.
>How many more times faster is a typical smartphone today (Raspberry Pi 3: 2,451 MIPS, ARM Cortex A73: 71,120 MIPS) that a 1990 SparcStation 2 pizzabox (28.5 MIPS, $15,000-$27,000)?
This is an excellent collection of SOM/COM resources, thanks a lot for that!
Perhaps not surprising, but COM/DCOM has been a recurring reference when talking about the WebAssembly component model. Another useful resource from the past that influenced quite a few Wasm component discussions (h/t to Luke Wagner for sharing it) is one about Knit [1], which as intended as a _component definition and linking language_ for C.
[1]: https://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/papers/knit-osdi00/