Comment by jraph

I didn't downvote, but I don't think esprehn is being unfair. Their comment is very informative. They didn't argue that what was implemented is not an interpreter, they did explain why it's not a JavaScript interpreter and not even an interpreter for a subset of JavaScript. It's just a special purpose interpreter suitable for YouTube's code that cannot be re-used for any code that uses the subset that it seems to implement.

It's not pedantry (or I'm pedantic). It's a reaction to the title that can lead people to believe that a complete JavaScript interpreter has been written in less than a thousand lines of Python. This reaction is perfectly understandable.