That sounds like a good idea. Have you considered writing it?

I was trying to compile my internal data and encounter "what's the right way to represent string in Webassembly" so that's why I came up with the demand for tutorial from a toy language because it has less features to worry about.

I don't understand why I got downvoted, it seems HN users with power to downvote just see everything is a nail they wanted to exercise their power.

Anyway, I'd probably write one when I actually implement it. I know linear memory is available but not sure whether or not having GC or mechanism that make memory safe.

Thank you for making it!

Unfortunately, a JVM on wasm would be quite difficult for the same reason that Lisp over wasm is quite difficult (I had actually looked for wasm JVMs before trying anything). I had no idea there was a JS JVM implementation! That's very cool.

There is also TeaVM which is very fast and has both a js and a wasm target.

TeaVM lacks reflection and a class loader, both of which are necessary for ABCL.

Thanks for the only compliment in the thread! I appreciate it, especially given I've been such a fan of your writing and life for such a long time.

I think that the people who responded to you covered much of it, but you can find more by doing a web search for it. I'd find you links myself, but it's early in the morning and I'm a little tired.

As it says in the article, stdout is wired to the browser console. So you open your browser console to see it.

It's not meant to be sold, it's just a little toy.

The spec people have been very rude to the Lisp people every time something has been brought up. I'm not going to look up everything that's been written, but here's an example:

https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/message/34821303/

I wouldn't call their responses rude, but they are somewhat dismissive.

Nothing's being sold; it's just a little toy.

That's not true at all, and I'm tempted to write something to prove you wrong.

My aesthetic choices were intentional, and almost nothing in your comment is right.

I'd love read that rebuttal. And I'd ensure that I read it in its gloriously yellow form.

The page was written to render well if you turn reader view on, and the color schemes are all in one line and easy enough to change. The only thing missing from the reader view is the aside, which is silly and in proper contrast on the original page.

However, the contrast is WCAG AA-conformant (except for the links that aren't in a black box, which aren't important links, as I went out of my way to confirm as I wrote the post). The page is actually pretty accessible.

Accessibility is important to me, as many people I've known in my life have been disabled, but so are silly aesthetic choices.

It was intentional, but it also was well-intentioned. That's why it's readable in more or less every web browser, regardless of whether it supports the one line of CSS I'm using, and accessible to screen readers (although I didn't throw in any elements specifically for them, the page is written simply enough that it should work, intentionally).

I don't think you hit the mark at all, as the person who wrote the page. Nothing you note is a bad thing; they're all positives. Superficiality is my specialty.

Your comment kind of shows some biases you might want to work on.

I hardly think I'm wrong just because you don't (think you) fit the bill. I may still be wrong, but it would take more than one single indignant denial to prove.

But I grant that my comment was flippant and OT, potentially ad hominem denigrating even if unintended. I'll try better next time. You on the other hand might try harder to make websites that are readable to ordinary people. Or not.

I think it's fine to accuse people of things, even though I did feel a little sad about it. I don't think the problem is that you broke rules of a web forum, or that you attacked me. I wasn't complaining that you were flippant and off-topic, I was complaining that you think silly web designs are a masculine trait, which is incredibly sexist, as well-intentioned as the sentiment is. Geocities was almost gender-balanced, which included a lot of people of all different kinds of backgrounds making strange-looking web pages. Neocities has more web pages by women than nearly anywhere else on the Internet, and many of those designs aren't to corporate sensibilities, either.

My post is WCAG AA-compliant, except for the very specific occurrence of meaningless social links, and those meaningless social links render well in a browser's 'Reader View'. My site contains no ECMAScript aside from what was necessary to get the toy working. I care deeply about making things accessible; it's important to me.

> you think silly web designs are a masculine trait

So, this seems to be a simple misunderstanding then. Because that's not what I mean (nor wrote). Anyhow, although we can probably continue to debate the finer points of this, I propose we don't. Have a good evening.

All of the CSS is handwritten for exactly the intended effect that it gave.