embedded-scripting-languages VS yaegi

Hopefully the linked README provides a general overview (I know I need to write some more documentation!), but Steel is an implementation of the scheme programming language (not entirely compliant yet, but aiming for R5RS and R7RS compliance). It can be used as a standalone language via the interpreter/repl (like Python or Racket), or it can be embedded inside applications, like Lua. There are hundreds (thousands, probably) of embeddable languages, each with their own flavor - see a list compiled here for example https://github.com/dbohdan/embedded-scripting-languages

Use cases are generally for either configuration, scripting, or plugins - so scripting in games, or adding extensions to your text editor without having to use FFI or RPC + serializing a bunch of data. The advantage it has over using dynamic libraries (in general) is it runs in the same process, and can access the internal data structures directly without a lot of ceremony involved. The downside is typically is not as fast as native code unless a JIT is involved.

Javascript is an example of an embedded scripting, where the browser is the host application.

> There is a huge opportunity, IMO, for more players here.

There are quite a few embeddable scripting languages [1]. I think these days it's less common to embed a language mostly because there are good high-level languages that applications can be predominantly written in.

[1] https://github.com/dbohdan/embedded-scripting-languages

I'm not a huge fan of Lua but I think it is at least way more popular and better on every measure than TCL. There are plenty of other better less well-known options too: Rhai, Wren, AngelScript, Starlark (for some use cases), etc. There's a good list here.

or perhaps use one of this list (depending on who's writing the configuration): https://github.com/dbohdan/embedded-scripting-languages

https://github.com/dbohdan/embedded-scripting-languages (coincidentally, from a user whose name I recognize from the Tcl wiki)

Yes. There are long standing feature requests for (e.g.) the reflect package that simply don't get done because they'd break this assumption and/or force further indirection in hot paths to support "no code generation at runtime, ever".

Packages like Yaegi (that offers an interpreted Go REPL) have "know limitations, won't be addressed" also because of these assumptions.

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/4146

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/16522

https://github.com/traefik/yaegi?tab=readme-ov-file#limitati...

There is always https://github.com/traefik/yaegi - a Go interpreter written to make it easy to write plugins.

I think https://github.com/traefik/yaegi comes as close as using the python interpreter in you CLI, but for Go

There's a go interpreter: https://github.com/traefik/yaegi It could run programs without compiling them, but there're some limitations.

I'd recommend looking into a different approach for plugins such as hashicorp/go-plugin (which uses multiple process PIDs and RPC communication between them) or traefik/yaegi (which implements a Go-compatible scripting language that can be interpreted at runtime and which still supports most Go modules).

Why do we need a language like Rust when we have Rust. Why not just create a Rust interpreter. (There's such an interpreter for Go, BTW, https://github.com/traefik/yaegi )

A cool solution I saw was Traefik's yaegi module. They basically created an interpreted scripting language with Go compatible syntax (turning Go into an interpreted, not compiled, language). I haven't tried this but it sounds like it brings the better parts of dynamic languages like Python's plugin support to Go - plugin writers can still write "Go" code, which can load dynamically.