> If you're worried about performance, why are you advocating asm.js? That's always going to be less performant than direct browser support for a language. TL;

> If you're worried about performance, why are you advocating asm.js? That's always going to be less performant than direct browser support for a language. TL;DR: You won't get Lua support in your favorite browser if you don't build web projects with Lua today, and you can only use Lua via asm.js today. non-TL;DR: because of 3 reasons: 1) JS is not going away, and you are not going to convince the main browser vendors to use Lua, this makes Lua via asm.js the only realistic way to use Lua in any browser today. 2) VMs like OdinMonkey use a different strategy when they detect the "use asm" pragma, and this allows Lua via asm.js to run faster than JavaScript, but this only applies to Firefox. 3a) In order to convince browser vendors to take Lua seriously, Lua has to be massively adopted in the web. 3b) In order to help Lua to become massively adopted in the web, it needs to run fast everywhere, not just in Mozilla's browsers. 3c) In order to help Lua to run fast everywhere, the teams behind other JavaScript VMs (V8, JSCore, Chakra, etc.) need to be convinced that the web needs asm.js. 3d) In order to convince the people of other JS VMs, we need to build more projects which use asm.js. -- > > We should be working hard to kill Flash and Java completely from the web, substituting them with modern and standard web technologies. > The JVM (on which Java is only the most prominent of many languages) is standard and modern. So was Dart. So is Lua. The JVM, nor Dart, nor Lua are web standards, also, I expect from you to not be nitpicking my comment, I was referring to the frontend (ie. applets / flash player).