> If the web is so moribund that its health relies on convincing individual hackers not to do things they think would be cool, then the web is doomed. I don't t

> If the web is so moribund that its health relies on convincing individual hackers not to do things they think would be cool, then the web is doomed. I don't think it is; I think your argument is self-defeating. It makes me want to make a LuaJIT plugin more, not less. LuaJIT is seriously cool. Well, hack all you want (not like you need anyone's permission ;), my concerns were not with that part, but with > a strategy to do an end run around vendors [..] drive installation of such a [LuaJIT] plug-in Hack it up if you want. But if you make a serious effort to drive adoption of a new plugin - that I have a problem with. > Perhaps I underestimate how many tricks the V8 people have left in their bag. I hope so. But at some point they're going to reach a wall caused by JS's design limitations that simply can't be drilled through. I take the existence of Dart to be a tacit admission of that wall. I also take Google's focus on Dart as partial admission of not being able to get V8 performance to where they want. But (luckily for the web), V8 is not the only game in town. Competitors to V8 have introduced new approaches that show a lot of promise - background compilation in IE, full-program type inference in Firefox - with many more ideas remaining. So I really doubt there will be a LuaJIT killer app. Lua might be faster on some benchmarks now, but it likely loses on others (like on any language comparison), and in any case the difference will become smaller over time.