TypeScriptToLua VS Fennel

I've had some success with https://github.com/TypeScriptToLua/TypeScriptToLua

Luau may be an alternative as well, haven't tried it.

I love Lua, but at larger scales it's unmanageable.

There are some plugins (typescript.nvim) that use a Typescript to lua transpiler (TypescriptToLua]

54:28 reminded me of TypeScriptToLua, so if you wanted to, then you could turn this into Lua :^)

One immediate comparison that springs to my mind is the Löve 2D engine [1], which is a tiny game engine written entirely around Lua scripting (so that Lua includes the full game run loop as well).

Lua is a good scripting language, but it doesn't have the ubiquity of JS (and Löve doesn't have the ubiquitous deployment of the modern browser). Also, Lua doesn't have a static type ecosystem (though there are interesting projects like TypescriptToLua [2] exploring that space, but you can from the name they are following/lagging the JS ecosystem here).

There probably is a need to package more browser games as "real" games and a lightweight Canvas-focused approach could find a nice like Löve, especially if it were easier, for instance, to maybe port to consoles for small/indie game teams than one of the web views or Electron. (Though certainly Microsoft already has a version of WebView2 running on the Xbox.)

[1] https://love2d.org/

[2] https://github.com/TypeScriptToLua/TypeScriptToLua

Not part of the mods, but using https://github.com/TypeScriptToLua/TypeScriptToLua is quite easy and works surprisingly well. You can find some of the type definitions for computercraft here: https://github.com/Eforen/cc-tweaked-types/tree/master/declarations

It might be helpful to keep in mind: Typescript is a compiler that parses a Typescript AST and prints out whatever you want. So if your goal is to use it in a JS context, the only thing regulating what you do with it is that it outputs valid JS that can be interpreted by the various JS engines. There are projects like TypeScriptToLua which uses the TS compiler to print out Lua code.

You can take a look at TypescriptToLua which transforms the TS AST into Lua code using the compiler API, however I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The TS compiler works on *it's own\* AST generated from parsed Typescript. You can see how they implement your own type here. What you have some structured data and want to turn it into a type definition. That's just some loops you write yourself over data you've hopefully structured in a sane way. Turn it into a string, write it to a file with the extension `.d.ts`. No libraries needed.

It's interesting: minimal software is out there, but folks don't tend to choose it. I spend a fair amount of time thinking about how to be conservative in my dependencies, and this encourages a lightweight stack that tends to perform pretty well. These days, I'm favoring tools like Lua, SQLite, Fennel[0], Althttpd[1], Fossil[2], and the Mako Server[3] and find that great, lightweight, stable, efficient software is to be had, for free, but you have to go a bit off the beaten path. This isn't stuff you hear about on Stack Overflow.

In terms of frontend, which the post focuses on (Google Docs and a 30MB doc), I guess I'm conflicted. While I tend to favor native apps + web pages, I'm also a daily Tiddlywiki user, and I really think web apps have their place (heck, one idea I'm working on is a lightweight local server that lets you run web apps like Tiddlywiki). But without a doubt, Tiddlywiki is more resource intensive than Emacs (my go-to for notetaking when I'm not on TW). My tab for a 6MB Tiddlywiki file uses 155MB of RAM, and my (heavily customized, dozens of open buffers) Emacs session uses 88MB. So I do think the author has a good point.

[0]: https://fennel-lang.org/

Eh it's not just luajit and luajit didn't create that problem either. It's a symptom of lua actually succeeding at its design goal of being easily embedded as an extension language. A significant number of incompatible runtimes are more popular than the most recent puc lua, including I believe the older official lua 5.2 released in 2011.

I've done a fair bit of professional lua development and I don't think I've ever written standalone up-to-date puc lua except maybe for some tooling & scripts. It's such a small language and used in such a way that the runtime, distribution method, and available APIs have much more impact on your use (and compatibility) than the version.

Virtually everyone shipping a lua environment is also shipping changes to it that make it a unique target, if only extensions to the standard library. This is why I think syntax layer-only approach like fennel's is the correct choice for improving on lua. It mirrors lua's runtime semantics exactly, and allows you to access the implementation peculiars on their own terms and so can just be run on time of any lua system.

https://fennel-lang.org

Just learned about https://fennel-lang.org/ , could have probably used that as well to avoid Lua.

> I’m positive that there is a Lispy language out there (actually in existence, or the aether) that is appropriate for embedded work, but the constraints of the target make it difficult to envision.

Perhaps Fennel* fits the bill?

* https://fennel-lang.org/

I've also seen neovim plugins written in fennel [0], so if you want something lispy, that's possible now.

[0]: a Lisp that compiles to Lua, https://github.com/bakpakin/Fennel

Something similar: Fennel (https://fennel-lang.org/) is a lisp that compiles into Lua, which nvim can use as plugins, so you can write nvim plugins in a lisp. Aniseed (https://github.com/Olical/aniseed) makes this really easy.

If you want a more FP language on the Lua runtime, you might be interested in Fennel. I wrote a post about adding Fennel compiler to a hslua interpreter a while back, which might be useful for you.