wren

They'd have to be half crazy to use Wren in its current state in a real application.

It seems like Wren is looking to fill the same niche that Squirrel fits.

Right now, since Wren is so young, the people whose attention I want are not end users.

Definitely, when Wren gets more mature, it makes sense to refocus the initial verbiage on what it can do for and end user.

I'm trying really hard to keep Wren small and simple and have a minimal set of orthogonal, combinable features.

There would be none of these interconnection problems if you could switch your middle mile provider if they wren't providing good service to Netflix.

I believe (but have no proof) that Wren is more amenable to running on a microcontroller than Lua or Squirrel.

At a high level, Wren and Squirrel have a lot of overlap.

With Wren I'm trying to get as much mileage from as few features as I can.

So I guess my question is, how are they different, or, how is Wren better?

Some differences are: - Wren is much younger.

Fibers in Wren already support an analogous feature.

In Wren, "this" does exactly what you want, even in closures.

From that it's a short path to having <script language="text/wren"> with a bootstrap script to parse them out and feed to the wren engine:-) Of course if it were as easy as typing this out i'd be doing it already!

In Wren, fibers are explicitly cooperative—you specifically choose which fiber to resume when you suspend one.

Wren needs to support a non-C++ API because some potential users are using vanilla C.

Wren has a more compact representation for instances of classes and simpler/faster method dispatch.