generator VS quickjs-emscripten

I find straight forward, dedicated combinators much more readable and practical to use ie. for iterables (context where it makes a lot of sense) [0] example [1], runtime assertions (through refutations, which are much faster than combinators over assertions) [2], parser combinators for smallish grammars [3] etc.

In many cases vanilla/imperative js is more readable and terse, no need to bring functional fanaticism everywhere, just in places where it gives true benefits and in form that can be understood by peers.

Functional code can be beautiful and can also be unreadable/undebugable. Same with imperative code. It's great in js/ts you can pick approach where the problem is expressed more naturally and mix it at will.

[0] https://github.com/preludejs/generator

[1] https://observablehq.com/@mirek/project-euler

[2] https://github.com/preludejs/refute

[3] https://github.com/preludejs/parser

You can type it, take a look at pipe and pipe1 in [0].

[0] https://github.com/preludejs/generator/tree/master/src

Loops are great if your programming languages supports iterables/iterators/generators (also async generators) like in js/ts for example.

Especially generator-to-generator combinators ie. [0] give you terse, transducer expressiveness over computation on finite/infinite streams, arrays, etc. (all iterables). It's easy to compose them, jump into for loops if needed for arbitrary yielding (ie. yielding multiple items sometimes, skipping some, halting etc). `continue`, `break`, nesting, yield, yield from, normal code in for loops is very intuitive and terse creating pleasant, understandable code.

[0] https://github.com/preludejs/generator

Based on your comment below I think you figured out the difference - but if you're looking to execute JS, you can pick between ShadowRealm (where available, or using a polyfill) or my library quickjs-emscripten.

Pros of quickjs-emscripten over ShadowRealm:

- You can use quickjs today in any browser with WASM. ShadowRealm isn't available yet, and polyfills have had security issues in the past. See https://www.figma.com/blog/an-update-on-plugin-security/

- In ShadowRealm eval, untrusted code can consume arbitrary CPU cycles. With QuickJS, you can control the CPU time used during an `eval` using an [interrupt handler] that's called periodically during the eval.

- In ShadowRealm eval, untrusted code can allocate arbitrary amounts of memory. With QuickJS, you can control both the [stack size] and the [heap size] available inside the runtime.

- quickjs-emscripten can do interesting things with custom module loaders and facades that allow synchronous code inside the runtime to call async code on the host.

Pros of ShadowRealm over QuickJS:

- ShadowRealm will (presumably?) execute code using your native runtime, probably v8, JavaScriptCore, or SpiderMonkey. Quickjs is orders of magnitude slower than JIT'd javascript performance of v8 etc. It's also slower than v8/JSC's interpreters, although not by a huge amount. See [benchmarks] from 2019.

- You can easily call and pass values to ShadowRealm imported functions. Talking to quickjs-emscripten guest code requires a lot of fiddly and manual object building.

- Overall the quickjs(-emscripten) API is verbose, and requires manual memory management of references to values inside the quickjs runtime.

[interrupt handler]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...

[stack size]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...

[heap size]: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/main/doc...

[benchmarks]: https://bellard.org/quickjs/bench.html

The thing I want to achieve with WebAssembly is still proving a lot harder than I had anticipated.

I want to be able to take strings of untrusted code provided by users and execute them in a safe sandbox.

I have all sorts of things I want this for - think custom templates for a web application, custom workflow automation scripts (Zapier-style), running transformations against JSON data.

When you're dealing with untrusted code you need a really robust sandbox. WebAssembly really should be that sandbox.

I'd like to support Python, JavaScript and maybe other languages too. I want to take a user-provided string of code in one of those languages and execute that in a sandbox with a strict limit on both memory usage and time taken (so I can't be crashed by a "while True" loop). If memory or time limit are exceeded, I want to get an exception which I can catch and return an error message to the user.

I've been exploring options for this for quite a while now. The furthest I've got was running Pyodide inside of Deno: https://til.simonwillison.net/deno/pyodide-sandbox

Surprisingly I've not found a good pattern for running a JavaScript interpreter in a WASM sandbox yet. https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten looks promising but I've not found the right recipe to call it from server-side Python or Deno yet.

Can Extism help with this? I'm confident I'm not the only person who's looking for a solution here!

"Safely execute untrusted Javascript in your Javascript, and execute synchronous code that uses async functions" quickjs-emscripten, NPM

This maybe, as a start?

https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten

QuickJS Running in WebAssembly\ (17 comments)

The library was inspired by Figma’s blog posts about their plug-in system: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten#background

If you need to call into user-generated Javascript synchronously or have greater control over the sandbox environment, you can use WebAssembly to run a Javascript interpreter: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten#quickjs-emscr...

QuickJS in WebAssembly is much slower than your browser's native Javascript runtime, but possibly faster than async calls using postMessage. As an added bonus, it can make async functions in the host appear to be synchronous inside the sandbox using asyncify: https://emscripten.org/docs/porting/asyncify.html.

You can use One Weird Trick with generator functions to make your code "generic" over synchronicity. I use this technique to avoid needing to implement both sync and async versions of some functions in my quickjs-emscripten library.

The great part about this technique as a library author is that unlike choosing to use a Promise return type, this technique is invisible in my public API. I can write a function like `export function coolAlgorithm(getData: (request: I) => O | Promise): R | Promise`, and we get automatic performance improvement if the user's function happens to return synchronously, without mystery generator stuff showing up in the function signature.

Helper to make a function that can be either sync or async: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten/blob/ff211447...

Uses: https://cs.github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten?q=yield*+l...

This seems like a pretty nice, recently enabled way of getting a sandboxed js environment: QuickJS compiled to WASM: https://github.com/justjake/quickjs-emscripten.