Improve the Wasm runtimes table

[andreaTP]

Sorry for delay 😅 got swamped!
This fixes #89 and I hope it gives mostly fair and comparable data points to people reading.

As requested, I kept GH stars as a metric when possible.

cc. @bhelx for any notable miss in the landscape

[pretzelhammer]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to decline merging this PR.

The main issue is that the article's intended audience is application developers and casual tech readers who click on the article out of curiosity from places like Reddit and Hackernews. People who just want to know the shortest, quickest, and simplest answer to, "If I program in Language X and want to run Wasm, what package would I install to do that?" The table in the article isn't suppose to give an authoritative or exhaustive answer, but just give them a suggestion of where they should try looking first.

I feel that the information added in this PR adds more clutter than value to the article for its intended target audience. I'm half-considering scrapping the table altogether now and just linking out to resource like awesome-wasm-runtimes where people can do their own browsing and research. I'll have to think about it some more.

[andreaTP]

Thanks for the feedback, I'll give it a try tomorrow to squash the diff as much as I can and to fit the expected audience and we move on from there if you agree.

[andreaTP]

@pretzelhammer I attempted to squash the information together keeping it correct and fixing some notable omission (i.e. wasmtime), I'm open to remove Chicory when requested as it's probably the least relevant option in the table.

[pretzelhammer]

I think it's still a lil bit too much irrelevant information for most people reading the article, I've squashed it further in this pushed commit.

I removed GraalWasm because like you pointed out, it requires Java devs to opt into the Graal JDK which they may not want to do or may not be able to do in their project, so I've replaced it with Chicory since that's a JVM-native Wasm runtime implementation.

I'm closing this PR as I consider the above commit to resolve the issue.

[andreaTP]

@pretzelhammer thanks for taking in consideration my comments and incorporating the feedback, appreciated 🙏
Your commit is a reasonable compromise and a straight improvement over the initial version 👍