duckscript VS rune

Currently i'm using it in cargo-make but will also use it later to parse args for duckscript commands.

At it's most basic you could make a really simple interpreter by just doing such a thing, and there is essentially already such a simple language like that built for/in rust called Duckscript (rust has a surprisingly large number of little embedded languages), and that would be completely and entirely sufficient for many purposes, though if you want speed then you'll need to JIT or AOT the code, which is why wasm is so handy as you can interpret or JIT (or even AOT it with wasmer) without the much larger overhead of a, for example, javascript or java embedded runtime.

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.