With respect to the message from Pavel Aronsky <[email protected]>
on 03/17/2017 11:20 AM:
-------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------
The tinyutils page you mention points to microperl, Lua, rc and forth,
as well as busybox support for shell scripts. It does not mention what
(to me, at least) is glaringly obvious: busybox does include awk. It
is light (already builtin) and fast (in my experience, at least). It
does support the "system" function which allows you to execute commands
outside of awk. awk has associative arrays. Depending on your
scripting needs, it may be enough. For me, variable naming is simpler
than perl. If I want a script to do more than simply run a sequence of
commands I will often turn to awk
Doug Clapp
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
