It sounds like you're saying Yoz got the sequence of events wrong, and that MILLJ was a necessary part of getting scripting in the browser? I sort of had the impression that the reason they hired you in the first place was that they wanted scripting in the browser, but I wasn't there.
I don't think Lua was designed to enforce a security boundary between the user and the programmer, which was a pretty unusual requirement, and very tricky to retrofit. However, contrary to what you say in that comment, I don't think Lua's target system support or evolutionary path would have been a problem. The Lua runtime wasn't (and isn't) OS-dependent, and it didn't evolve rapidly.
But finding that out would have taken time, and time was extremely precious right then. Also, Lua wasn't open-source yet. (See https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/94-07-051.) And it didn't look like Java. So Lua had two fatal flaws, even apart from the opportunity cost of digging into it to see if it was suitable. Three if you count the security role thing.
Yes, the Sun/Netscape Java deal included MILLJ orders from on high, and thereby wrecked any Scheme, HyperTalk, Logo, or Self syntax for what became JS.
Lua differed a lot (so did Python) back in 1995. Any existing language, ignoring the security probs, would be flash-frozen and (at best) slowly and spasmodically updated by something like the ECMA TC39 TG1 group, a perma-fork from 1995 on.
Well, I'm not dead yet! Looking for work, which is harder since I'm in Argentina.
Flash-freezing Lua might not have been so bad; that's basically what every project using Lua does anyway. And by 01995 it was open source.
In case anyone is interested, here's a test function from the Lua 2.1 release (February 01995):
function savevar (n,v)
if v == nil then return end;
if type(v) == "number" then print(n.."="..v) return end
if type(v) == "string" then print(n.."='"..v.."'") return end
if type(v) == "table" then
if v.__visited__ ~= nil then
print(n .. "=" .. v.__visited__);
else
print(n.."=@()")
v.__visited__ = n;
local r,f;
r,f = next(v,nil);
while r ~= nil do
if r ~= "__visited__" then
if type(r) == 'string' then
savevar(n.."['"..r.."']",f)
else
savevar(n.."["..r.."]",f)
end
end
r,f = next(v,r)
end
end
end
end
It wouldn't have been suitable in some other ways. For example, in versions of Lua since 4.0 (released in 02000), most Lua API functions take a lua_State* as their first argument, so that you can have multiple Lua interpreters active in the same process. All earlier versions of Lua stored the interpreter state in static variables, so you could only have one Lua interpreter per process, clearly a nonstarter for the JavaScript use case.
The Lua version history https://www.lua.org/versions.html gives some indication of what a hypothetical Sketnape Inc. would have been missing out on by embedding Lua instead of JavaScript. Did JavaScript have lexical scoping with full (implicit) closures from the beginning? Because I remember being very pleasantly surprised to discover that it did when I tried it in 02000, and Lua didn't get that feature until Lua 5.0 in 02003.
It sounds like you're saying Yoz got the sequence of events wrong, and that MILLJ was a necessary part of getting scripting in the browser? I sort of had the impression that the reason they hired you in the first place was that they wanted scripting in the browser, but I wasn't there.
I don't think Lua was designed to enforce a security boundary between the user and the programmer, which was a pretty unusual requirement, and very tricky to retrofit. However, contrary to what you say in that comment, I don't think Lua's target system support or evolutionary path would have been a problem. The Lua runtime wasn't (and isn't) OS-dependent, and it didn't evolve rapidly.
But finding that out would have taken time, and time was extremely precious right then. Also, Lua wasn't open-source yet. (See https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/94-07-051.) And it didn't look like Java. So Lua had two fatal flaws, even apart from the opportunity cost of digging into it to see if it was suitable. Three if you count the security role thing.