On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 1:43 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:38 AM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:34 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:16 PM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Apologies for the late reply. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:27 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> > wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> > wrote: > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:33 PM Eshan Dhawan < > eshandhawa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > Hello Everyone, > >> >>> >> > I wanted to take Packaging Micro Python up as GSOC project > this summer and the project will also include packaging LUA and picoC > >> >>> >> > The ticket for Micro Python : > https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4349 > >> >>> >> > What would be the complete Scope of the project? > >> >>> >> > And what would be a good starting point? > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Well, I guess Joel must have described the task, so I'll leave > it to > >> >>> >> him to fill in some more details. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Adding RSB packages may be not sufficient coding work for GSoC. > It is > >> >>> >> important in the proposal to identify what would be the coding > >> >>> >> activities involved in this project. For example, we know from > >> >>> >> experience that Lua can just be built from some minor tailoring > of its > >> >>> >> Makefile, so the package is very straightforward. However, the > >> >>> >> projects you mention are scripting environments, so maybe > creating a > >> >>> >> framework in RTEMS for a "shell/intepreter" that can be built as > an > >> >>> >> add-on by RSB would be a proper way to scope this effort > >> > > >> > Packaging might not be a lot of coding part but adding its > documentation and its example would be a very iterative and time consuming > process. > >> > >> Remember that code is what counts, while we expect the other stuff to > >> come along too, you don't want to be doing 90% doco and 10% code. Just > >> keep it in mind. > > > > What would be a good inclusion to this project ? > > I was thinking long double support since I worked on porting POSIX > functions I might find it easier. > > But it might interfere with matt's project if I understand that project > correctly. > > Right, please don't include that. You'll want to think/talk through > (with Joel, maybe) what could be good code contributions. If the RSB > packaging is fairly minimal, then creating a suite of examples might > be one way to increase the SLOC contributions. I also think there is > merit to the idea of creating a "plug-in" way to add shells to RTEMS. > Maybe even refactoring our current shell out to a add-on package then. > Just a thought. >
I'd rather see two languages with good packaging, examples for RTEMS use cases, and documentation. It's a fair project. If you get through those, we can find another language. TCL probably. I don't expect Forth or LISP to be high on the list. Lol > > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I agree that Lua and Micropython should build easy but I had more > >> >>> > in mind. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > The full project was language stacks for RTEMS with a better user > >> >>> > experience for Micropython, Lua, Tcl, etc although I am not sure > what > >> >>> > etc would entail. I am not sure all three can be completed in the > new > >> >>> > GSoC timeframe. All would follow the same pattern: > >> > > >> > Etc can be managed while framing the proposal according to how time > is being managed. > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > + RSB package offering a reasonable default and access to > configuration > >> >>> > + Examples including at least bare embedded, use of custom > commands, > >> >>> > and integrating with RTEMS shell commands Perhaps interactive > use with > >> >>> > command line history and editing integrated if we have that as a > library now. > >> >>> > + Documentation specific to RTEMS and the examples > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I imagined completely parallel kits for each embedded language we > wanted > >> >>> > to support. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Does that help? Should he plan on Micropython and Lua? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> Sure. Lua should be easy way to get started and develop the > >> >>> framework/infrastructure side in Phase 1. Phase 2 could be extension > >> >>> to micropython / other scripting languages. > >> > > >> > Since all the languages will have a similar pattern complex work can > be put in phase 2. > >> > From my past experience, it is the part when most work is done :) > >> > >> True, but for repeat students, we do expect a bit more acceleration in > >> the first phase. Usually, we want to see code merged in phase 1 by > >> repeat students. Just a reminder that the bar is higher :) > > > > :) > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> OK. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm not sure about the RSB design of things, and whether they should > >> >>> be parallel or capable of integration. Would anyone want to use > >> >>> multiple interpreters in the same application? If so, they should > >> >>> build together to avoid conflicts. If not, parallel is fine. > >> > > >> > building them can be set to build flags, > >> > but there still needs to be a way if we want to build the package > other than the default way. > >> > (any ideas on how to do that ) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I don't see any reason on our side why that shouldn't work but we > >> >> can't guarantee they don't have symbol conflicts. And I'm not sure > >> >> it would make much sense to integrate both at the same time. > >> >> > >> >> I'd think you could install both but we'd focus on only using one > >> >> at a time. > >> >> > >> >> --joel > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > --joel > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Thanks > >> >>> >> > - Eshan > >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> > devel mailing list > >> >>> >> > devel@rtems.org > >> >>> >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> devel mailing list > >> >>> >> devel@rtems.org > >> >>> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel