On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Pavel Aronsky <pavel.aron...@gmail.com> 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? >
BusyBox isn't a project that would make a "scripting language" or a "programming environment" for you. BusyBox is a set of common Unix utilities fused in one binary that can be used on small or embedded OS distributions. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox