idoco2003 opened a new issue, #19135: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/19135
Hi NuttX maintainers, Same honest framing as I would give any RTOS: URML (urml.dev, a small Apache-2.0 robot-intent language) lives well above the OS, and validation mostly happens off the microcontroller. What brings me to NuttX in particular is two things: the POSIX-compatible API, and the fact that PX4 runs on NuttX while URML already maps onto PX4 as a substrate. So there is an existing, concrete path here rather than a hypothetical. The seam is execution. A minimal URML executor (RFC-0018, our constrained-target shape) runs an already-validated plan, and NuttX's POSIX-like surface is a friendly host for one. Because the PX4-on-NuttX stack is real and URML already targets PX4, the most sensible first look is probably right there rather than in the abstract. Two questions: does NuttX's POSIX compatibility make it a natural host for a small pre-validated intent executor on constrained targets? And given the existing PX4-on-NuttX path, is that the right concrete place to examine this, rather than a generic NuttX integration? Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0581-nuttx-outreach.md Thanks for NuttX; the POSIX discipline is exactly what makes hosting a small executor tractable, and the PX4 connection makes it more than theoretical. Ido Yahalomi (URML, [email protected]) *AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.* -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
