Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

Post by jacobs101 » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 10:23 AM UTC

norir wrote: post #178

antirez wrote: post #111

If this had been available in 2010, Redis scripting would have been JavaScript and not Lua. Lua was chosen based on the implementation requirements, not on the language ones... (small, fast, ANSI-C). I appreciate certain ideas in Lua, and people love it, but I was never able to like Lua, because it departs from a more Algol-like syntax and semantics without good reasons, for my taste. This creates friction for newcom…

I don't love a good deal of Lua's syntax, but I do think the authors had good reasons for their choices and have generally explained them. Even if you disagree, I think "without good reasons" is overly dismissive. Personally though, I think the distinctive choices are a boon. You are never confused about what language you are writing because Lua code is so obviously Lua. There is value in this. Once you have written…

Post by andai » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 11:08 AM UTC

pizlonator wrote: post #46

This engine restricts JS in all of the ways I wished I could restrict the language back when I was working on JSC. You can’t restrict JS that way on the web because of compatibility. But I totally buy that restricting it this way for embedded systems will result in something that sparks joy

Post by kybernetikos » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 11:11 AM UTC

garganzol wrote: post #195

antirez wrote: post #111

If this had been available in 2010, Redis scripting would have been JavaScript and not Lua. Lua was chosen based on the implementation requirements, not on the language ones... (small, fast, ANSI-C). I appreciate certain ideas in Lua, and people love it, but I was never able to like Lua, because it departs from a more Algol-like syntax and semantics without good reasons, for my taste. This creates friction for newcom…

JavaScript in 2010 was a totally different beast, standartization-wise. Lots of sharp corners and blank spaces were still there. So, even if an implementation like MicroQuickJS existed in 2010, it's unlikely that too many people would have chosen JS over Lua, given all the shortcomings that JavaScript had at the time.

Post by mxey » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 11:23 AM UTC

alcover wrote: post #23

qweqwe14 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would never happen because there's zero incentive to do this. Browsers are complex because they solve a complex problem: running arbitrary applications in a secure manner across a wide range of platforms. So any "simple" browser you can come up with just won't work in the real world (yes, that means being compatible with websites that normal people use).

> that means being compatible with websites that normal people use No, new adhering websites would emerge and word of mouth would do the rest : normal people would see this fast nerd-web and want rid of their bloated day-to-day monster of a web life. One can still hope..

Post by fnord123 » Wed, Dec 24, 2025, 11:25 AM UTC

shawn_w wrote: post #236

norir wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't love a good deal of Lua's syntax, but I do think the authors had good reasons for their choices and have generally explained them. Even if you disagree, I think "without good reasons" is overly dismissive. Personally though, I think the distinctive choices are a boon. You are never confused about what language you are writing because Lua code is so obviously Lua. There is value in this. Once you have written…

>Lua is the only lightweight language that I am aware of with TCO. Scheme is pretty lightweight.