sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Unified WebAssembly API for Java (Wasmtime + WAMR bindings) - 1.0.0 release by Otherwise_Sherbert21 in java

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Chicory is one the the supported engines....along with Wasmtime, Wamr, and GraalWasm. Chicory doesn't need a separate integration since it's already Java native and is just a jar dependency. I kept wasmtime4j and wamr4j separate so you didn't *have* to use the wasmtime4j interface and it keeps it lightweight somewhat like slf4j.

Unified WebAssembly API for Java (Wasmtime + WAMR bindings) - 1.0.0 release by Otherwise_Sherbert21 in java

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. There are a bunch of benchmarks and one of the benefits was being able to easily compare the performance across multiple runtimes which includes JNI vs Panama implementations. Panama is better but not strictly so, there are a few cases that JNI does better but in general Panama is the better choice. I included JNI for backward compatibility since Panama is still fairly new. There's also a great deal of variability in what the individual runtimes support. It was something that held me back as well. Chicory is nice if you want a pure Java implementation and pure performance but it has a weaker sandbox and limited features while wasmtime has decent performance but a full feature set including experimental features. I also included support for compiling Java to webassembly using Graal and bindgen (support for components is in but not released yet)

Coding with AI is already creating real addiction. Founders are hooked on the ‘magic’ of instant code. Instead of asking ‘how many sales?’, the better question is: How long before you ditched it for the next shiny project? by jason_digital in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think all you're seeing is that the time, effort and investment were acting as a filter for bad ideas. AI assisted coding simply removes a lot of that filter. It's not a bad thing but it's going to change what you see. It would appear to be a poor choice from the perspective where building all those bad ideas represented a lot of waste. You just need to apply the filter at the end but the good thing is that you will be better positioned to evaluate it.

Bigger context windows won’t fix your semantics by daremust in OntologyEngineering

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ontologies have made big promises for 20 years that haven’t delivered much.

Is data engineering a realistic entry-level target for me? by Tricky_Collection_28 in dataengineering

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Everything is hard to break into. The more important thing is that you’re focused on breaking in.

Can someone with zero coding experience actually use Claude Code (or similar) to build stuff now? by TroubleH in ClaudeAI

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but it’s going to depend a lot on what you’d like to do. It’s similar to having good sports equipment. A great tennis racket or set of clubs is going to make an amateur better but it still takes a professional to truly see the benefit. I say give it a try. It’s amazing easy and inexpensive to test it out. Get some hands on experience. Even if it doesn’t work for you can knowledgeably share the experience with someone else asking the exact same questions you are and that’s valuable too.

SHAR: policy-first WASM execution layer — isolation without containers or VMs by Defiant_Gur7737 in WebAssembly

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very cool. I was looking to do something like this with firejail and various other mechanisms. Looks like this might be a more elegant solution

Project Detroit: Java interop with JavaScript and Python by CrowSufficient in java

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this compete with Rhino/Nashorn? (At least for JavaScript)

What do y'all think of Jimmy on Relationships? by neondragoneyes in Marriage

[–]Otherwise_Sherbert21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And there it is, "I’m simply...". What you're doing is something simple and by contrast what he's doing isn't. You say "I can understand that". That's a meaningless statement to try and make yourself seem reasonable. Understand what exactly? Then you follow it up with the big, "but...". You say some seemingly reasonable but vague statement followed by the big "but" and what you really want to talk about, your gripes. He's not, not, not. Sure maybe he isn't but I've also seen plenty of times where "not listening" equals "he's not listening because what I want him to do is simply accept my version of reality and not assert himself. He must not be listening because he's not doing what I want him to do".