Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

It sounds like you're trying to articulate why you don't like Lua, but it seems to just boil down to syntax and semantics unfamiliarity?

I see this argument a lot with Lua. People simply don't like its syntax because we live in a world where C style syntax is more common, and the departure from that seem unnecessary. So going "well actually, in 1992 when Lua was made, C style syntax was more unfamiliar" won't help, because in the current year, C syntax is more familiar.

The first language I learned was Lua, and because of that it seems to have a special place in my heart or something. The reason for this is because in around 2006, the sandbox game "Garry's Mod" was extended with scripting support and chose Lua for seemingly the same reasons as Redis.

The game's author famously didn't like Lua, its unfamiliarity, its syntax, etc. He even modified it to add C style comments and operators. His new sandbox game "s&box" is based on C#, which is the language closest to his heart I think.

The point I'm trying to make is just that Lua is familiar to me and not to you for seemingly no objective reason. Had Garry chosen a different language, I would likely have a different favorite language, and Lua would feel unfamiliar and strange to me.

GraalVM supports running javascript in a sandbox with a bunch of convenient options for running untrusted code.

https://www.graalvm.org/latest/security-guide/sandboxing/

> More importantly, Lua has a crucial feature that Javascript lacks: tail call optimization. There are programs that I can easily write in Lua, in spite of its syntactic verbosity, that I cannot write in Javascript because of this limitation. Perhaps this particular JS implementation has tco, but I doubt it reading the release notes.

> [...] In my programs, I have banned the use of loops. This is a liberation that is not possible in JS or even c, where TCO cannot be relied upon.

This is not a great language feature, IMO. There are two ways to go here:

1. You can go the Python way, and have no TCO, not ever. Guido van Rossum's reasoning on this is outlined here[1] and here[2], but the high level summary is that TCO makes it impossible to provide acceptably-clear tracebacks.

2. You can go the Chicken Scheme way, and do TCO, and ALSO do CPS conversion, which makes EVERY call into a tail call, without language user having to restructure their code to make sure their recursion happens at the tail.

Either of these approaches has its upsides and downsides, but TCO WITHOUT CPS conversion gives you the worst of both worlds. The only upside is that you can write most of your loops as recursion, but as van Rossum points out, most cases that can be handled with tail recursion, can AND SHOULD be handled with higher-order functions. This is just a much cleaner way to do it in most cases.

And the downsides to TCO without CPS conversion are:

1. Poor tracebacks.

2. Having to restructure your code awkwardly to make recursive calls into tail calls.

3. Easy to make a tail call into not a tail call, resulting in stack overflows.

I'll also add that the main reason recursion is preferable to looping is that it enables all sorts of formal verification. There's some tooling around formal verification for Scheme, but the benefits to eliminating loops are felt most in static, strongly typed languages like Haskell or OCaml. As far as I know Lua has no mature tooling whatsoever that benefits from preferring recursion over looping. It may be that the author of the post I am responding to finds recursion more intuitive than looping, but my experience contains no evidence that recursion is inherently more intuitive than looping: which is more intuitive appears to me to be entirely a function of the programmer's past experience.

In short, treating TCO without CPS conversion as a killer feature seems to me to be a fetishization of functional programming without understanding why functional programming is effective, embracing the madness with none of the method.

EDIT: To point out a weakness to my own argument: there are a bunch of functional programming language implementations that implement TCO without CPS conversion. I'd counter by saying that this is a function of when they were implemented/standardized. Requiring CPS conversion in the Scheme standard would pretty clearly make Scheme an easier to use language, but it would be unreasonable in 2025 to require CPS conversion because so many Scheme implementations don't have it and don't have the resources to implement it.

EDIT 2: I didn't mean for this post to come across as negative on Lua: I love Lua, and in my hobby language interpreter I've been writing, I have spent countless hours implementing ideas I got from Lua. Lua has many strengths--TCO just isn't one of them. When I'm writing Scheme and can't use a higher-order function, I use TCO. When I'm writing Lua and can't use a higher order function, I use loops. And in both languages I'd prefer to use a higher order function.

[1] https://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2009/04/tail-recursion-elim...

[2] https://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-words-on-tail...

You’re wrong in the way in which many people are wrong when they hear about a thing called “tail-call optimization”, which is why some people have been trying to get away from the term in favour of “proper tail calls” or something similar, at least as far as R5RS[1]:

> A Scheme implementation is properly tail-recursive if it supports an unbounded number of active tail calls.

The issue here is that, in every language that has a detailed enough specification, there is some provision saying that a program that makes an unbounded number of nested calls at runtime is not legal. Support for proper tail calls means that tail calls (a well-defined subgrammar of the language) do not ever count as nested, which expands the set of legal programs. That’s a language feature, not (merely) a compiler feature.

[1] https://standards.scheme.org/corrected-r5rs/r5rs-Z-H-6.html#...

There's nothing wrong with 1-based indexing. The only reason it seems wrong to you is because you're familiar with 0-based, not because it's inherently worse.