> Wouldn't it be better to start working on an "LLVM for language interoperability"? That way every language only needs to provide a connection to an intermediate specification, and it can connect to any language supporting that same specification.
My somewhat limited understanding is that the WASM interface types proposal is hoping to serve that sort of role. Note that in this case, the "web" part of "web assembly" is kind of a red herring; as I understand it, this proposal doesn't really have anything to do with the web and is more of an attempt to utilize WASM to create a sort of "universal ABI" that can replace the current de facto choice of using the C ABI everywhere.
it comes with some overhead though, which is useful in many circumstances as it also gives some sandboxing, but if your goal is universal interop then you probably want to have a solution that doesn’t incur a speed penalty.
My somewhat limited understanding is that the WASM interface types proposal is hoping to serve that sort of role. Note that in this case, the "web" part of "web assembly" is kind of a red herring; as I understand it, this proposal doesn't really have anything to do with the web and is more of an attempt to utilize WASM to create a sort of "universal ABI" that can replace the current de facto choice of using the C ABI everywhere.