dpgeorge commented on PR #840: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/840#issuecomment-3322180834
As a maintainer of MicroPython, here is my opinion on this PR: 1. While having CPython available in NuttX is amazing, it's probably not workable on microcontrollers or small systems due to the high resource usage of CPython (static code size and RAM usage). So having MicroPython as another option makes sense. 2. Getting a MicroPython REPL is a good start, but eventually it will need integration into NuttX, eg filesystem, sockets, etc. The latter is the most time consuming part, although it can be done step by step by different contributors. 3. The PR here attempts to take the existing unix port of MicroPython and integrate it into NuttX. That seems reasonable, because maybe it can leverage things like the socket module already implemented on the unix port. I'm not sure of the primitives that NuttX provides (does it have POSIX socket functions like `bind`, and pthread threads?) but for the unix port of MicroPython to make sense here it would require integration via POSIX calls. 4. The alternative worked on by @yf13 above uses MicroPython's new embed port, which makes it a lot easier to integrate into the build system of NuttX, because in the end it's just a set of .c/.h files that need to be compiled. Probably that's the main thing to consider, ease of integration. This embed port can still leverage existing MicroPython extended module code like POSIX filesystem integration, which is a bonus. In summary: I would suggest this PR is closed in favour of option (4), using the embed port, building on what @yf13 has started. -- 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
