So in this regard, having more implementations may be useful (more opportunity to improve documentation) - thus while I am in general skeptical, this is good news here, even if I do not use Go myself.
So in this regard, having more implementations may be useful (more opportunity to improve documentation) - thus while I am in general skeptical, this is good news here, even if I do not use Go myself.
It becomes a huge pain in the bum as soon as you have to deal with moving anything more than trivial types around, because you have to manually allocate memory for the WASM runtime and move bytes around. The byte representation needs to be understandable by the source language for your WASM code (the v language in my case). This is why these WASM runtimes use ints in their README examples, it would look and be horrendously complex otherwise.
If one is looking to use WASM for something for plugin development in the backend, I would try and look for something that is not WASM generic, but works with the source language, and where the WASM aspect is an under-the-hood detail.
I'm not sure how well it carries over to embedded platforms though, but I'm really interested in trying.
Or occasionally I Google specific Wasm instructions and find .wat examples for them on MDN.
I'm sure you're right that the documentation is years behind that of HTML and CSS, but is there some specific aspect of Wasm documentation that you find lacking that isn't covered by the spec?
I'm not sure if it's right but I think of WASM as just an ISA and I guess the documentation seems to cover instruction encodings and semantics.