PetervdPerk-NXP commented on issue #16415: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/16415#issuecomment-2926840289
> If we don't use dynamic memory and POSIX, why are we using NuttX? Wouldn't it be better to use FreeRTOS or uC/OS? Why would I choose a relatively heavyweight framework like NuttX? Because NuttX isn't Linux, NuttX can even run on a Z80. But lately there a lot of the changes/developers trying to turn NuttX in Linux/BSD which is counterproductive. In it's essence NuttX is an RTOS, anywhere we can avoid a `malloc` and gain some determinism is always a win it makes the system simpler and more predictable. >while ensuring that the interfaces exposed to the specific chip driver layer are as simple as possible to implement. The remaining complex tasks should be handled by the NUTTX device driver layer, which requires individuals with philosophical thinking to tackle. Yeah, at this point it seems like we’ve got pretty different views on this especially around making things easier for driver developers vs. keeping the OS side maintainable. I don’t think this is heading toward anything super productive, so I’m gonna step back from this issue. Cheers. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
