Thanks for the suggestion. I am not familiar with yocto. If they can cross compile Python (that is very hard, as google results show), it would be great. I'll look at it.
Regards, Pavel A > On 17 Mar 2017, at 17:23, Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why do you need a scripting language in the busybox project? > > Cannot you just generate the platform with things like a small subset of > python using Yocto or something similar? > >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Pavel Aronsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Apologies for maybe a wild or off-topic question. >> After dealing with quite a few products with busybox and its ash shell used >> as the primary scripting language, I'd like to ask you, busybox experts: >> what are alternatives? >> >> This page: https://busybox.net/tinyutils.html - mentions Lua and >> Micro-perl. I'd rather perfer a small subset of Python, but cold not find >> one after a day of googling (this is surprising. I've been sure such things >> exists). >> >> However my search hit one interesting Javascript engine named Duktape >> (duktape.org). >> >> Javascript looks almost as good as Python for me, it is popular and should >> be familiar to new developers. Lua is less familiar, but much better for >> writing moderately simple app logic than the *dreadful* shell language. >> >> So the question: how feasible would be inclusion of Lua or Javascript into >> BB, as option for systems where one of these languages will be heavy used? >> >> As "plan B": has anyone seen (or thought of) a FFI interface for BB that >> would allow to call shared libraries written in C, from ash? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Pavel A. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> busybox mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox >
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
