On Feb 28, 2012, at 3:06 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > I actually thought of a killer feature of switching to scripting > programming language: > > How about if we could replace 80% of the C code with a scripting > language without sacrificing performance and make 80% of the OpenOCD > code unit-testable?
This is actually why I made Lua bindings to all the functions in an API for a PCI capture card I developed for work; it made unit and regression testing much easier, and it also allowed us to use functions without having to write a C program which called them (we could call them directly from the Lua command line). It was very useful. You can even make preprocessor macros to do a lot of the bindings for you, though there are some valid arguments for why you should not do so. It's a lot easier in C++ where you can do template metaprogramming, but I don't think anyone is interested in going there for OpenOCD (nor should they be). > The idea is to get exception handling and resources tracking + some > sane objected oriented design. > > If we can use this to increase the readability, testability and > ultimately quality of OpenOCD, then I'd be more interested. I think you could improve OpenOCD a lot with it. I think Python would be an even better choice from a completeness-of-standard-libraries approach, but the concerns over its footprint are very real and I think probably a dealbreaker. - Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
