4 ms·

As light weight, easily embeddable JS engines go, I'd like to mention Duktape[0]. But the FFI of mJS does look quite a bit nicer.

• drozd 10y ago
  Duktape is nice, and I've mentioned it in the article. However it's quite fat, and can't be used on some boards like ESP8266. It's flash footprint is Megabytes, whereas mJS flash footprint is ~25k.
  • megous 10y ago
    Duktape website: "Embeddable, portable, compact: can run on platforms with 192kB flash and 64kB system RAM"
    • ricardobeat 10y ago
      Also http://www.esp32.com/viewtopic.php?t=497 http://www.esp32.com/viewtopic.php?t=497
      • drozd 10y ago
        Ah, thanks, wrong about flash footprint. Neil has done a great job adopting Duktape on ESP32.