Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn't deal well with flexible types either, a dangerous luxury in
> Python that I've got very fond of. But it seems to me that if a GRASP
> core implementation is written in C for efficiency, it will *need* to
> offer an API in C that higher level languages can build on.
No, because it will be monolithic: not part of a library, no sockets API, etc.
> BTW, my not-production-quality Python version of the GRASP core is now
> about 1800 lines of code, but if we take out the stuff for diagnostics
> and debugging there's maybe 1000 lines. I hope we'll find out in the
> hackathon how big the BUPT code is; so far they don't support an API,
> so they are on your model.
My understanding is that uPython is getting significant traction in some
constrained environments: someone may want to rewrite your code to this
very limited subset (less than python 2, I'm told). I think that this is
more likely to be a "library" than any C code.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
