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 <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? > > Thanks in advance, > > Pavel A. > > > > _______________________________________________ > busybox mailing list > busybox@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox >
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
