Small languages (was Re: Lua, Lunatic and Python

Stephen J. Bevan stephen at dino.dnsalias.com
Fri Dec 19 03:20:08 CET 2003


Charles Steinkuehler <charles at steinkuehler.net> writes:
> Stephen J. Bevan wrote:
> > Charles Steinkuehler <charles at steinkuehler.net> writes:
> 
> >> Using a forth-based solution to create the root ramdisk image would
> >> drastically reduce the footprint of the initial ramdisk image, remove
> >> reliance on a particular C runtime library (allowing folks to build
> >> runtime root images based on uClibc, glibc, or whatever), and provide a
> >> *VERY* powerful yet tiny runtime scripting/programming language for
> >> extending the system.
> > IMHO what drastically reduces the footprint is not using glibc at
> > all.
> 
> Which is why I think that a small Forth kernel talking directly to the
> linux kernel is the best solution.

It is probably the smallest solution.  Whether it is best depends on
which languages you prefer to use and how much you are willing to
trade space for time to use that language.  Given a choice between
siod and my own Forth (3.4KB under Linux) I'd probably take siod for
scripting tasks unless I was really desperate for the 90KB that I
could save by using my Forth.  That's because all else being equal I
prefer to write in Scheme rather than Forth, though things aren't
always equal which is why I use Forth for some tasks




More information about the Python-list mailing list