Lua versus C++ for embedded processor

Cameron Laird claird at lairds.us
Sun Sep 12 18:08:03 CEST 2004


In article <45c5d645cae78c97a5caad9e821d5a5c at localhost.talkaboutprogramming.com>,
ciw1973 <mail at zerospam.cleatorwilson.com> wrote:
>I'll be starting a new project using Rabbit modules (the new wonderfully
>low cost, feature rich RCM3700) in a couple of weeks time. I'm quite happy
>to code in Dynamic C and the new version is supposed to have improved a
>good deal, but I do like the idea of using scripting languages where
>possible for future maintainability and Lua would probably be about the
>only option for a device like the Rabbit. If you port it to Dynamic C,
>could you let me know? I'd be very interested.
>
>I took a look at Lua a while ago, and even bought the Lua book to allow me
>to get a good feel for the language. It is actually very good, but at the
>time I was looking at it as a replacement for Python, but for my
>day-to-day, non-embedded work, the lack of additional libraries (compared
>to Python) was an issue.
>
>It did strike me as being ideal for embedded work, primarily due to its
>size, and deploying a product running software written in an interpreted
>language allows quick and easy live remote updating of the software
>itself. I've done this on devices based on embedded PC architecture
>running Perl, but it always seemed too optimistic a goal on something like
>the Rabbit Cores.
>

I don't know what could more encourage one to Lua's suitability
for such uses than The Book, which you appear already to have 
read.  Yes, Lua implementation is, from all my experience, an
order of magnitude than the corresponding Perl effort.



More information about the Python-list mailing list