Oh, I forgot that WASM-4 is a thing. It indeed makes a good comparison:
- MicroW8 was originally conceived from the size-coding community (I think it was mainly inspired from TIC-80), and partly because of that its compressed cart is much smaller than WASM-4 carts and can be shared with just a single URL. The built-in assembly language (CurlyWas) also certainly helps.
- MicroW8 has a relatively rich support for palettes and fonts. That might be a matter of taste though (some want a very constrained environment, others want a slightly more powerful but still retro-looking environment).
- As a result WASM-4 doesn't have any sort of text handling while MicroW8 has one, arguably similar to PICO-8 as well due to its control characters.
- MicroW8 doesn't yet have audio support, though it is in the high priority to my understanding.
I would really like to explore something like a whole section of the internet that runs on something like an 80 column fantasy console and restricts all web pages to like 50 or 100kb or something.
Most other fantasy consoles are based on their own virtual machines or stripped-down scripting languages (like Lua in PICO-8), but this is based on WebAssembly so there is a variety of languages you can pick. You can of course write an WebAssembly module from scratch or a built-in assembly language called CurlyWas [1].
It doesn't look like this has any editing UI (i.e. code, sound, graphics, etc. editors) like PICO-8 or TIC-80. So it's more of a bare runtime for a console and you're on your own to make all the assets.
Pico-8 has an artificial CPU limit; once you surpass 100% utilization the system cuts the framerate in half until CPU usage dips back down under the imposed cap.
I'm wondering the same thing. Both MicroW8 and WASM-4 seem to be unlimited, whereas it'd be nice if there was some standard for CPU speed in case I wanted to, say, port it to a retro console.
