quickjs VS chibicc

It uses service workers to cache static files, by the time it opens up you already free to be offline, try toggle network switch to verify.

It has download link at bottom of the about page ([accdoo.app/about]) which you could then self host it by dropping into any static hosting services.

btw, the Pi feature was by-product from the original App but I won't expand here, if you'd like to learn more, please checkout its two Show HN post (39115559 and 39138957) previously.

[wiki]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm

[quickjs/pi]: https://bellard.org/quickjs/pi.html

[pi_bigint.js]: https://github.com/bellard/quickjs/blob/master/examples/pi_b...

[accdoo.app/about]: https://accdoo.app/about#releases

[39115559]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39115559

[39138957]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39138957

Just go with quickjs, I think this is what you are looking for.

https://bellard.org/quickjs/

QuickJS

I think QuickJS, written in C, is a user-"friendly" starting point for implementing ECMA-262. Documentation QuickJS Javascript Engine.

There is a readme on the project's main page: https://bellard.org/quickjs/

The newsworthy bit here is that the activity seemed to have stalled for year or two and now Fabrice pushed a few fixes and made a new release.

Just to demonstrate GitHub repositories do not necessarily reflect upon a programmers' body of work, Fabrice Bellard has one (1) repository published on GitHub, quickjs. Compare the list of work on Bellard's home page https://bellard.org/.

> I am still confused, it's a JavaScript runtime intended to be deployed to JavaScript/Wasm runtimes?

Seemingly.

> Why does a JavaScript runtime need a JavaScript runtime?

Because if you want to create a Service Worker server for CloudFlare Workers and other JavaScript/Wasm runtimes, that's the only option for doing that AFAIK.

FWIW, this isn't a new idea. For example, Figma uses QuickJS (https://bellard.org/quickjs/) for their plug-in runtime: https://www.figma.com/blog/an-update-on-plugin-security/

If a --k&r mode was to be reliable, wouldn't it need to get specified first? Otherwise people would start relying on some edge case.

If speed is not a requirement for the --k&r mode, you could just take the tis-interpreter and note that if it runs without UB, it is still much faster than an actual computer was when k&r were active.

Would it even be possible to specify a variant of C that contains no UB (e.g. would define exactly what happens on unaligned access), but can compile practical existing C89 programs? I wonder if it could be written such that it could actually specify the behaviour consistently across the language intersection supported by both of e.g. GCC 2.95 and Chibicc[0].

Or maybe there are so many bugs in GCC 2.95 that it would simply be infeasible? How much time would it take to specify?

[0]: https://github.com/rui314/chibicc

I was on the Eclipse Foundation call a few days ago regarding this topic and they said there was a well-established 3-part test for this in the EU courts. But I don't think I managed to take a screenshot, sorry.

Here is a snippet from the EU Blue Guide linked the from the Eclipse blog post:

"Commercial activity is understood as providing goods in a business related context. Non-profit organisations may be considered as carrying out commercial activities if they operate in such a context. This can only be appreciated on a case by case basis taking into account the regularity of the supplies, the characteristics of the product, the intentions of the supplier, etc. In principle, occasional supplies by charities or hobbyists should not be considered as taking place in a business related context."

I would consider GCC or React to fit this definition, while a hobby project like https://github.com/rui314/chibicc not to fit it.

chibicc

chibicc: https://github.com/rui314/chibicc (A reasonably digestible C implementation)

When you say a fork of LLVM, am I correct in assuming that you specifically mean a fork of Clang? I don't see how the compiler backend would affect support for language extensions, regardless of whether it's an exception to that such as Tcc, Cproc, the MIR C jitter, lacc, 8cc, 9cc, and chibicc. Most of those are not for production, excluding Cproc and Tcc (at least according to Suckless or Oasis).