---
title: "WebAssembly Components: The Runtime-Agnostic Future of Software"
created: 2024-11-18 13:00
author: Raj Patel
keywords: WebAssembly, WASM, WASI, component model, ByteCode Alliance, containers, runtime
description: WASI 0.2 and the WebAssembly component model represent a genuinely new approach to software packaging. Here is what it means and who is actually using it.
---

In January 2024, the WebAssembly System Interface working group released WASI 0.2 — the second major version of the interface standard that allows WebAssembly programs to interact with the operating system. The release was accompanied by the component model, a specification for how WebAssembly modules can be packaged, composed, and distributed in a way that is independent of the runtime, the language, and the operating system.

The claims made for WebAssembly components are ambitious: code written in Rust, Go, Python, or any language that compiles to WebAssembly should be composable, portable, and secure, regardless of where it runs. The component model is the mechanism that makes that composability possible in a principled way.

After a year of working with the specification and talking to teams using it in production, TechPulse can report that the reality is more promising than the hype, more mature than skeptics expected, and still some distance from ubiquity.

## What the Component Model Actually Solves

To understand why the component model matters, it helps to understand what it is solving. Traditional software distribution has a language problem: code written in Rust cannot call code written in Python without a foreign function interface (FFI) that is language-specific, fragile, and usually requires careful attention to memory management at the boundary.

The component model defines a standard interface definition language (WIT — WebAssembly Interface Types) and a standard way of encoding values at the boundary between components. A Rust component and a Python component that both implement the same WIT interface can be composed together by a runtime, with the runtime handling type conversion and memory isolation at the boundary.

This is similar to what container-based microservices achieve, but at a finer granularity and with much lower overhead. A WebAssembly component is not a full container with its own OS layer; it is a module with a typed interface. Starting time is measured in microseconds, not hundreds of milliseconds. Memory overhead is kilobytes, not megabytes.

## WASI 0.2: What Changed

The jump from WASI 0.1 (Preview 1) to WASI 0.2 was significant. WASI 0.1 provided basic POSIX-like capabilities: files, environment variables, clocks, and random numbers. It was enough to run many programs but notably lacked networking — a significant limitation for server-side software.

WASI 0.2 adds a networking API (wasi-sockets) and, more importantly, the component model plumbing that makes composition possible. Components in WASI 0.2 can import and export typed interfaces, can be composed at link time, and can run in any compliant runtime regardless of where they were compiled.

The ByteCode Alliance — the industry consortium that coordinates WASI and the component model specification, with membership including Fastly, Microsoft, Google, Intel, and others — shipped supporting tooling in 2024 that made the specification practically usable. The Wasmtime runtime reached production readiness for WASI 0.2 workloads. The `cargo component` toolchain for Rust-based component development became stable.

## Real-World Adoption: Who Is Using It

Adoption of WebAssembly components in production is real but concentrated.

**Fastly** is the most advanced production user. Their Compute product runs customer code as WebAssembly modules at the edge, and they have been pushing the component model as the basis for Compute's plugin ecosystem. Fastly engineers have contributed significantly to the specification and tooling.

**Fermyon Technologies** built their Spin framework — a developer-friendly tool for building serverless WebAssembly applications — around the component model. Spin has a growing user base and is one of the clearest demonstrations of what component-based development looks like in practice. Fermyon has also been shipping Fermyon Cloud, a managed hosting service for Spin applications.

**Microsoft** has incorporated WebAssembly components in several Azure services, most notably in their edge networking infrastructure. The details are less public, but multiple Microsoft engineers are active contributors to the component model specification.

**Shopify** has been evaluating WebAssembly as the execution substrate for their storefront extension system, which needs to run untrusted third-party code in a sandboxed environment. The security properties of WebAssembly — memory isolation, no ambient authority, fine-grained capability grants — make it attractive for this use case.

## Comparison with Containers

The inevitable comparison is with Docker containers, which solved the portability and packaging problem for a previous era. Containers won because they gave developers a standard unit of packaging that was runtime-agnostic, reproducible, and composable through orchestration layers.

WebAssembly components are not a container replacement in the general case. They are a different tool for a different class of problems. Containers provide full OS-level isolation with their own filesystem, network stack, and process tree. WebAssembly components provide CPU-level isolation within a shared process. Containers are right for full applications with complex dependencies. Components are right for plugins, functions, and composable modules where startup overhead, memory cost, and security sandboxing requirements favour a lighter model.

The most interesting near-term application of WebAssembly components is probably in the extension and plugin ecosystem: giving application developers a safe, performant way to allow untrusted code to run inside their applications without compromising the host. This is the use case that Shopify, Fastly, and a number of other production adopters are building around.

## What Still Needs Work

The component model ecosystem has meaningful gaps that will take time to close.

Language support is uneven. Rust and C/C++ have mature toolchains for producing WebAssembly components. Go's support has improved but still has limitations. Python and JavaScript tooling is functional but produces larger binary sizes due to the need to bundle runtime interpreters. The ecosystem is moving toward "guest toolchains" for major languages, but the work is not complete.

Debugging and observability tooling lags. Debugging a WebAssembly component through a standard debugger requires additional DWARF extension support that is not uniformly available. Distributed tracing across component boundaries is not standardised. These are solvable problems but they have not been solved yet.

The component model also has a learning curve that is real and non-trivial. WIT interface design is a new skill; understanding capability-based security for WebAssembly requires new mental models; and the toolchain surface area is larger than it appears. Teams adopting WebAssembly components in 2024 are still early adopters who should expect rough edges.

## The Longer View

WebAssembly components represent a genuine attempt to solve a problem — secure, language-agnostic composition of software modules — that no previous technology has fully solved. Containers solved deployment packaging. Function-as-a-service platforms solved some of the same problems but with high startup overhead and coarser granularity. The component model is attempting something more fundamental: a universal substrate for computation that is language-independent, runtime-independent, and platform-independent.

Whether that ambition is achievable depends on adoption dynamics that are not yet determined. The specification is solid. The tooling is reaching production quality. The early adopters are building real systems. Whether it achieves the penetration needed to become a default rather than a speciality depends on the next two to three years.

---

*This article draws on conversations with engineers at Fastly, Fermyon, and several ByteCode Alliance member companies, as well as the author's own work with Spin and Wasmtime.*
