> Better sense tells me I should probably keep quiet, but ... Nah...speak up. We won't even flame you here!
> Back when this discussion came up previously (Dec 2001/Jan 2002?) I > was able to get micro_httpd working with an embedded lua interpreter. > It allows one to write html code with inline lua scripting, like php. > To add some real numbers to this dicussion: > > micro_httpd - dynamically linked against libc 9404 bytes > lua_micro_httpd dynamic libc, static lualib 75972 bytes > > Compressing with upx gets it to 39K, which is still big for a > diskette-based configuration engine. If FORTH can really get us an > embedded language in 10K, that sounds great. I'll check the site > Charles mentioned tomorrow; any other pointers anyone can give - > please share! (I'm not a coder - but don't mind getting my fingers > burned either...) I like LUA (haven't programmed anything real in it, but I've gone over the docs pretty well, and compiled the stand-alone LUA interpreter). I think it's excellent at its targeted application (a scripting language for complex programs), but is not particularly well suited to being added to the core of a LEAF distribution for a few reasons: Size - While fairly small for a scripting language (vs perl, python, etc), LUA is still pretty large. Requires libc - Not a show-stopper...almost all parts of LEAF require libc, but I'd like to have a light-weight scripting language that could boot w/o libc to enable some potentially complex booting scenarios that have been discussed previously, like run-time selection of libc version, mixed libc environments (ie a base system running off ulibc, with optional add-ons using gnu libc), and similar. We already have sh - While more powerful than ash in several respects (especially with handling numbers), I don't think LUA provides dramatically more functionality than is available with standard shell-scripts...especially if a light-weight numeric processing tool was provided to extend ash's native abilities in this regard. Untyped - I especially don't like the fact that LUA is untyped (strong integer & floating point math capability is one of the key things I miss when programming in shell-script). I may be missing something with LUA since I don't have much experience with it, but as an example, I'd like to know how well a numeric processing program (like rrdtool or MRTG) would code in LUA. This is one of the things I'd like to code in a small script for LEAF, but have not attempted due to the limited numeric processing available in sh. LUA is definately better with math than sh, I just don't think it goes far enough. No linux syscalls - There is no inherent capabilitiy to directly make linux syscalls, and given LUA's untyped data structures, grafting on this ability would likely be difficult. With the ability to directly make linux syscalls, not only is the requirement for libc drastically reduced (or eliminated), but ti becomes possible to script things like a full-fledged web-server, e-mail sending program, or other network based program, and it also becomes possible to script core utilities (like su, chroot, etc) if desired. Forth: Tiny - about 1/4 the size of LUA No libc required - works on any system, even at bootstrap with an initrd in the 10's of K, rather than 500K+ low-level-power - While still considered a scripting language, Forth has the ability (and was initially designed) to do low-level machine control....like "c", you get the ability to talk directly to the machine...unlike "c", you have small programs, no compile required, and no libc required (at the expense of somewhat slower execution and coding your own library routines). Talking directly to the machine means you can execute linux syscalls, load/call external libraries (including libc) if required, and pretty much do anything possible in a "real" compiled programming language. For math, you get everything from bit-level twiddling to whatever you want to write for a math library (single/double precision floating point, arbitrary precision calculations, whatever)...of course for standard things like floating point, there are off-the-shelf GPL/public-domain "libraries" (actually, word-sets in forth) availble from a variety of places. Drawbacks - Forth is considered by many to be a wierd, arcane, and obscure language. Of course, I don't think LUA is going to be replacing C or Java anytime soon, either, and I actually consider LEAF a bit obscure, although probably not wierd or arcane :) There is actually a pretty large group of folks continuing to write Forth (and commercial vendors providing supported toolchains), but it's all in the "hidden" world of micro-controllers...the tiny CPU's controlling your dishwasher, oscilloscope, etc...several folks are even running forth on their Lego MindStorms RCX controllers (why didn't they have these when I was a kid!?!). Drop by comp.lang.forth sometime, and you'll see a pretty active user community. I guess to me LUA is just not enough of a "win" for the extra size it requires, but as I said, I don't have much direct experience with it. I try to keep an open mind, and stand prepared to be convinced otherwise, if anyone has some good arguments in LUA's favor. Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
