MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#2Oh, is this from the ghostscript people?
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#3I understand the AGPL and the want to monetize the work, but it just feels so disingenuous to have to contact for commercial details.
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#4I understand the AGPL and the want to monetize the work, but it just feels so disingenuous to have to contact for commercial details.
How is that disingenuous? It seems pretty forthright about its licensing to me.
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#5So I guess this is slower than JavaScriptCore and you have to get commercial license to actually embed it. Why would one choose it at all?
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#6So I guess this is slower than JavaScriptCore and you have to get commercial license to actually embed it. Why would one choose it at all?
From the linked site:
"Why? Because V8, SpiderMonkey and JavaScriptCore are all too big and complex. MuJS's focus is on small size, correctness and simplicity."
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#7How does it compare with duktape: http://duktape.org/ ?
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#8Strange that the example has 'js_dofile("config.lua")'... Is there lua in here?
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#9How does it compare with duktape: http://duktape.org/ ?
I was wondering the same. It's nice having an alternative though. I consider there to be two C embeddable Javascript interpreters, Duktape and MuJS now. V8 and Spidermonkey are great, but they are not acceptable for small projects where a simple scripting language to extend functionality is needed.
Re: MuJS: an embeddable JavaScript interpreter
#10I see hate for the licensing model they chose. But think of it this way: who is their target audience? Who would want a small, embeddable JS engine? I think they're targeting businesses who want to deploy node.js code on micro to small devices. Routers, NASes, that sort of thing.
In that light, it's great they even decided to publish the source under AGPL at all. They could just as well have kept it "all rights reserved".