标签：#webassembly

Somebody on Reddit posted about 997s that just say AK5*R*5 — one or more segments in error — no AK3 , no AK4 . Preach. That's the problem this free doohickey* is for: rejectdecoder.com *If you'd prefer a "gizmo", I can make that happen. What it does Paste the rejection (997, 999, 824, TA1) plus the original bounced document. It parses both locally in your browser and cross-audits them: control number agreement segment counts envelope consistency code validity required segments It then quotes the exact segment byte-for-byte and ranks the likely causes for anything it finds. If it finds nothing, it says the answer isn't in the docs and tells you to escalate to your partner with your control numbers — which beats pulling a diagnosis out of my... AIs. Where the AI does (and doesn't) fit I know how and appreciate WHY "AI-powered EDI" is sneered at. So the audits here are deterministic parser code, not a model. The AI only writes the plain-English narration of facts the parser already verified, every card says so, and if the narration fails you still get the full audit results. No hallucinations or guesswork. Privacy Parsing runs entirely in-browser (the real Python parser, compiled to WebAssembly via Pyodide) and even works with the WiFi off. If you use narration, only a masked summary you preview first ever leaves the page. Don't take my word for it — check your network tab. Free. No signup for the examples or the deterministic audits; narration is a handful of decodes a month with just an email. Built it solo from an in-house tool of mine, so it's young AND kinda old. Please tell me where it's wrong. Walmart's rejection quirks are encoded so far. Whose partner nonsense should be next...? -jjg

This article covers debugging and deploying a Rust backed WASM module with a Firebase hosted web app...

I'm building LOOM — a small open-source language that is a machine-checked trust layer for AI-written code. I don't write it by hand anymore: an organism I built grows it, day and night, on my own machine. This is Day 6, and the whole day went to one thing — WebAssembly . Why this was a real test LOOM already runs three ways: an interpreter, and backends that compile checked code to Python and JavaScript. The thesis is "trust survives translation" — effects and provenance, proven once, hold the same on every target. WebAssembly is the strongest test of that: a low-level stack machine with linear memory, nothing like Python or JS. And there was a constraint. This machine's clang has no wasm target, and I install nothing paid or heavy. So I don't compile to wasm through a toolchain — I emit the wasm bytes myself (LEB128, the type / function / memory / global / export / code sections, the i32 stack machine) and run them through node's built-in WebAssembly . Zero dependencies. From fib to a value runtime, in a day Every step was prototyped and proven (wasm output == interpreter output) before it touched the kernel: The integer core — arithmetic, comparison, if , first-order calls and recursion. fib(10) becomes 61 bytes of real WebAssembly and returns 55, identically on the interpreter, Python, Node and wasm. A value runtime — let and integer lists in a real linear-memory heap (a bump pointer + a $cons cell allocator; head / tail are i32.load , empty is i32.eqz ). A list sums and folds by recursion, inside wasm. Sum types — (variant Tag e) becomes a tagged cell [tag-id | payload] ; match loads the tag, compares, binds the payload, branches. You can watch it: the live playground has a Compile → WAT button and WASM · fib / list-sum / match examples. Type a program, see it become real assembly, in your browser. Honest scope: ints, let , integer lists and sum types compile to wasm today. Records, closures and effects are the next frontiers (closures are the hard one — a func

While building a web application using React, TypeScript, C++, Emscripten, and Raylib, I ran into two linker-related issues that took far longer to diagnose than they should have. This is a short article on two problems that I have faced, I am sharing this so that developers who are exploring Web Assembly using Emscripten can easily avoid these issues as I'll also cover the workarounds that solved them for me. I'll start with the major one. Link-Time Optimization and EM_JS The problem appears when Link Time Optimization (-flto) is enabled and an EM_JS(ret, name, params, ...) macro function is invoked in one translation unit but called from another. You'll find that the linker complains that the function symbol you're trying to call is undefined. The EM_JS macro defines a C interface to call the JS function. So if you have your EM_JS macros in a js_layer.cpp source file, then you need to wrap the macro invocation as extern "C" { EM_JS ( void , add , ( int a , int b ), { //your JS code; }); } The same applies to the function declaration in js_layer.hpp file. I'll briefly go through the three workarounds or 'solutions' before bringing up the last quirk. The Three Workarounds If performance isn't of any concern Well the first one is obvious, just don't use -flto in your release builds. The downside is that your binaries (the .data and .wasm compiler outputs in this case) will be larger. Without LTO, the linker has fewer opportunities for whole-program optimization and dead-code elimination, which can increase the size of the generated .wasm and potentially reduce performance. Write a wrapper You can simply have a wrapper function in the same translation unit which calls the C function interfacing with the JS function, add() if you take the above example. The wrapper can simply be: // In js_layer.hpp void add_wrapper ( int , int ); // In js_layer.cpp void add_wrapper ( int a , int b ){ add ( a , b ); } Now you can call add_wrapper() from any source file just by including

A complete ML pipeline: engine, backprop, binary format, and a live browser demo. Zero dependencies. Under 200 KB total. If you have built machine-learning projects before, you have probably done it by importing PyTorch, TensorFlow, or scikit-learn and calling .fit() . Those are excellent libraries. This article is about what happens when you deliberately do not use them — when you build every piece of the pipeline yourself, in a language that compiles to WebAssembly, and the result runs live in the browser with no server, no Python, and no cloud bill. Here is the live demo: move four sliders, watch the predicted Iris species update in real time. The model is running entirely inside your browser tab, loaded from a 1.1 KB binary file, powered by ~100 KB of WebAssembly compiled from pure Rust. This is the story of how I built it and why the engineering choices made it work. Why Rust? Why WebAssembly? Why zero dependencies? Three constraints drove every design decision. WASM requires no_std or a carefully limited std . The wasm32-unknown-unknown target has no operating system, no file system, and no libc. A crate that links against rand , ndarray , or any library that makes OS calls will not compile to it without significant plumbing. An engine built from nothing but the Rust standard library compiles cleanly to every target, including WASM. A zero-dependency std -only crate is uniquely auditable. There are no transitive dependency trees to vet, no supply-chain risks, no version conflicts. Every line of code that runs in the user's browser lives in this repository. The deployment story becomes the technical story. A 100 KB WASM blob that runs locally in the browser is not just a cost optimisation — it is a privacy guarantee (user inputs never leave the machine) and a latency guarantee (inference is microseconds, not a round trip to a cloud API). That story is only possible because the engine has no external dependencies that would bloat the binary. The architecture: ei