rune VS zig

A Lisp, a weird dialect of Lisp, is not better than Lua. Why use Rune [0]?!

[0]: https://rune-rs.github.io/

This is what I based my comment on - https://github.com/rune-rs/rune/issues/444

Late start today as well. I really thought today would be the day that I'd have to abandon my goal of no heap allocations. But, luckily I had an arena allocator available that I could fairly easily adapt to store data on the stack. And with some tweaks we have today's solution:

I'd have given you bonus points for using a rust styled scripting language like rune but that's pretty neat still

As note about using rust syntax for scripting: https://rune-rs.github.io/

I know you said you don’t want to embed another language but IMO Rune is worth a consideration here. It can be a pretty thin abstraction over rust by passing native structs to scripts and calling methods on them. The syntax and semantics are very close to rust so it feels natural. https://github.com/rune-rs/rune

The biggest technical difference I'd say is that Rune uses a stack-based machine which makes adding deep C support somewhat obvious while Rhai performs AST walking to execute scripts.

It's "Zig" not "Zag". https://ziglang.org/ Zig is under heavy development, but there's a single page https://ziglang.org/documentation/0.12.0/ that is a reasonably comprehensive source of truth about the current state of the language.

There is an issue proposing this approach: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/4284

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/224

e.g.:

> > When debugging/prototyping, it's useful to comment out a line without having to refactor, e.g.

When writing code in a scripting language, sometimes you need that extra bit of performance (or maybe an async feature from Zig).

NodeJS is by no means a slow runtime, it wouldn’t be so popular if it was. But compared to Bun, it’s slow. Bun was built from the ground up with speed in mind, using both JavascriptCore and Zig. The Bun team spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to make Bun fast, including lots of profiling, benchmarking, and optimizations.

ntdll.dll!RtlUserThreadStart()

There are valid reasons to use APIs from NTDLL. Where I disagree with zig#1840 is the idea that it is always better to use NTDLL versions of API. Every other software ecosystem uses the standard Win32 APIs and diverging from that without a good reason seems like a good way to have unexpected behavior. One concrete example is most users and programmers expect Windows to redirect some file system paths when running on WOW64. But this is implemented in Kernel32, not ntdll.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/11894