[cxr]

> I imagine that part of it is for security.

Sure, that much is clear. But we're discussing it in contrast with other security-preserving approaches. "For security" only really makes sense we were asking, "Why do any of these things at all?", but we're past that. What we're asking is "Why this thing specifically?"—especially where that thing is expensive.

> Figma has a good overview of the different approaches they considered for their JavaScript plugin system, and JS-in-JS was one of them

First: to reiterate, JS-in-WASM is not JS-in-JS.

Secondly: Mirrors, notably, are not among the approaches they evaluated. I advocated for an evaluation of a similar Mirrors-based approach in the HN thread at the time that the Figma post was published:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20770105>