On Feb 23, 6:53 pm, Paulito <paul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apologies if this has been asked; I haven't yet Googled the archives. > > From a brief email conversation, Guido pointed me to this newsgroup to > ask the following questions: > > "Is Python 'mature' enough to be considered the primary language for > embedded systems? Is the performance there for real-time applications > (eg avionics, real-time control systems) or is it still more suitable > "...as a glue language, used to combine components written in C++" ?" > > And further: > "Has anyone tried to shorten development time when porting code to a > new embedded hardware platform, by trying to convert legacy code (C/C+ > +/Ada) to Python?" > > I'm currently thinking that Python isn't there yet but certainly would > like to hear any feedback. > > Your input is greatly appreciated; thanks! > - Paulito
Python is probably not the best choice for embedded systems because it lacks fine control over hardware, something that C and C++ have in bunches. Also, it doesn't perform well enough to be considered for situations where resources are at a premium (think microcontrollers). Could you develop in Python for a platform like Android or iPhone? Yeah, they have the space, memory, and CPU to run Python stuff. But on weaker CPUs and less memory, Python would be a poor choice. It's not a matter of language maturity, Python is very mature, it's a matter of design. Python is a high-level, garbage-collected, interpreted language, and that's not the ideal type of language for embedded systems. Rafe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
