It'd be great if there were some good examples of the script up there on the front page - even after a few minutes of clicking around - I had only seen C++, no ChaiScript.<p>This did not really give me any feel for whether I would want it embedded in my project or not.
I hadn't been aware of ChaiScript until now, but its C++ binding techniques are similar to what I developed for my LikeMagic project, a (mostly-)language-independent C++ script language binding project, with Io as its first backend language. Interesting case of parallel evolution; I'll have to contact the author to see if he wants to collaborate on ideas - we even happen to use the same BSD license for our two projects.<p><a href="https://github.com/dennisferron/LikeMagic" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/dennisferron/LikeMagic</a>
Saying this is the "only" EMSCAscript compatible c++ scripting language seems a rather debatable claim<p>See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QtScript" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QtScript</a><p>Obviously, Qt script is designed for c++ plus Qt whereas this is designed for c++ plus Boost. I personally think Boost is over-complicated ridiculousness but maybe that's just me. Still, there is at least one alternative to Chaiscript, if not more.
IMO, it would really help if the main page quickly discussed the differences and similarities between chaiscript, python, and C++. I couldn't find that explanation, but I only surfed the page for 30 seconds or so.<p>Looks cool.
Interesting middle ground between Swig+(C++)+$scripting_language and pure C++.<p>A key weakness I see here is the lack of a standard library for Chaiscript.<p>If I choose to use my preferred approach of Swig+(C++)+Tcl, I get a command line REPL shell and Tcl's excellent file I/O stuff, regex, string functions etc for free (the Tcl pieces I mentioned are never the efficiency bottlenecks in the sort of compute-intensive programs I write).<p>I don't see enough here to convince me that it's better than pure C++ or swig+scripting language.