Yoshua Wuyts (Oct 18 2023 at 13:15): Yoshua Wuyts (Oct 18 2023 at 13:15):I'm looking at https://github.com/bytecodealliance/jco/issues/167, and it seems that we're doing something slightly unoptimal for the deno runtime.
So what I'm wondering is: do we care about deno? Is it something we're maybe interested in supporting better later? Or is that out of scope for jco in its entirety?
If we care abou deno, or think we might care later, I'll tag the issue with a new target-deno label so we can start to track it. If we don't care about supporting deno, I think we should say as much and close the issue.
Yoshua Wuyts (Oct 18 2023 at 13:16):Ah, https://github.com/bytecodealliance/jco/issues/168 also seems deno-specific.
Milan (Oct 18 2023 at 16:28):From the gallery Deno support would be nifty since it has decent sandboxing unlike node so far
Ralph (Oct 18 2023 at 18:35):I'd vote for tagging those things; ultimately, with the intention of engaging those items at some point with deno peepz?
Guy Bedford (Oct 18 2023 at 19:21):Agreed 100% we should support Deno, and we very much do support it. Wasm caching is something Deno should do natively though I think.
Yoshua Wuyts (Oct 18 2023 at 19:41):Oki, I’ll tag the issues then. Thank you!
Notification Bot (Oct 18 2023 at 19:41):Yoshua Wuyts has marked this topic as resolved.
Last updated: Oct 23 2024 at 20:03 UTC