3 ms·

Naive question: is it viable if we started using Lua[JIT] for configuration, like NeoVim and likely others do? Can Lua's interpreter be compiled without some "

Naive question: is it viable if we started using Lua[JIT] for configuration, like NeoVim and likely others do? Can Lua's interpreter be compiled without some "dangerous" APIs enabled (whichever those might be) and thus be made viable as an embeddable and isolated configuration engine? I'm just getting sick and tired of all the half-baked configuration formats and want to look for something that's both more flexible but still strict and unambiguous. I wonder if it's possible? As I said, naive question.

bmn__ 5y ago
> Naive question: is it viable if we started using [a Turing-complete programming language] This is actually a good question. The people who are not asking and going right ahead with that plan are doing a dangerous thing. <https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sergey/langsec/occupy/ https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sergey/langsec/occupy/> It's not viable because a subset of people would like to have the following properties upheld: • Parsing configuration should be decidable and finish in finite time. • Parsing configuration should not be a security exploit. • I should not have to implement the Emacs runtime just to parse its configuration file. > something that's both more flexible but still strict and unambiguous. I wonder if it's possible? This really depends on what you mean by these words; I'm interested to hear your idea in detail. Meanwhile, have a look at Dhall <https://dhall-lang.org/ https://dhall-lang.org/> and the other languages mentioned in <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29221643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29221643> and compare.