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.aronsky@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