Sure, but see the comment by munificent. You're saying, well JVM bytecode sucks because it's hard to compile C++ to because it lacks multiple inheritance, and arguing this makes WASM more language agnostic.

But. Then you admit that compiling Java to WASM is hard because there's no GC, you'd have to ship your entire GC with the app and it wouldn't be fast because GCs like to integrate with the JIT compiler and WASM is the JIT compiler here. Also WASM JITs don't really understand managed code patterns well.

So how is WASM more language agnostic? Seems like (if we ignore Graal) WASM has trouble with languages JVM bytecode is good at, and vice-versa. Quite comparable, no?

BTW even saying C++ is easy to compile to WASM is tricky because WASM apparently has no exception support, and exceptions are a part of the C++ language. Likewise for vendor extensions like vector intrinsics, inline assembly etc. At best you can handle a subset of the language.

So in the end I don't buy that it's really more generic. As munificent says, it seems more like people aren't really sinking their teeth into the tradeoffs involved.