2 ms·

Just to clarify facts - Owl is PyMite (aka python-on-a-chip) fork (e.g. https://bitbucket.org/ricearch/embeddedpython/src/e491720236242b057991efe60e1e19cf174e77

by pfalcon 11y ago

Just to clarify facts - Owl is PyMite (aka python-on-a-chip) fork (e.g. https://bitbucket.org/ricearch/embeddedpython/src/e491720236242b057991efe60e1e19cf174e7778/src/vm/obj.h?at=default#obj.h-230 https://bitbucket.org/ricearch/embeddedpython/src/e491720236... , and there're dozens of PyMite references in Owl codebase), and pretty shallow fork at 46 commits past the initial import (over 2 years). PyMite has pretty long list of features not implemented, starting with standard Python exceptions. In other words, PyMite isn't exactly Python, it's Python-like language. It's very unlikely that PyMite is able to run more or less sizable script written for standard Python. (I'd love to stand corrected!) MicroPython OTOH implements complete Python execution model (but e.g. only subset of Python object model), and nowadays runs pretty large subset of Python standard library (https://github.com/micropython/micropython-lib https://github.com/micropython/micropython-lib). Btw, if you run MicroPython on ESP8266, please consider contributing to the mainline - this port slowed down lately due to lack of contributions. Thanks!

mianos 11y ago
I put pulls in but it seems they don't want to accept stuff that does not work like the rest of the platforms supported. Perfectly reasonable I think but the fact that there is not a way to set the wifi mode in micropython is a bit slack. They didn't want that most recent pull of mine. I'll put my whole interrupt driven framework on a fork on an share it in case anyone is interested.
- pfalcon 11y ago
  I see. Well, I hope that indeed can be understood - merging code to mainline which is known as requiring a rework means breaking some people's code later. In this situation, maintaining a fork till more momentum is gathered and issues are resolved does make a sense. But please keep in touch (e.g. via MicroPython forum) - alone knowing that you keep working on it and it does work for you is a good motivation for other folks to not drop the ball with this port (and for new folks to pick it up).
  - mianos 11y ago
    I can perfectly understand why changes would not be wanted. It's no big deal at all. That's said. The project vastly underestimates the impact the ESP8266 has had and will have. IMHO that chip and those that follow in its footsteps will revolutionize the industry in more ways than the 100 STM32 projects ever did. It's more like the Aduino viral like impact on hobbyists. As much as it's a flakey POS, it's not as pathetic as the ATMEL chips and I'm jumping on the bandwagon.
    - pfalcon 11y ago
      > changes would not be wanted. Changes are wanted - very much. But clean changes adhering to MicroPython coding standards. So, if you have time and/or need to support ESP8266, please keep sending patches and working on elaborating them. In the meantime, more people appear to want to work on STM, TI and other chips, however you or me may find it strange. Probably because those chips already have been having impact on the industry - for number of last several years, and ESP8266 yet to show that impact. All in all, MicroPython embraces ESP8266 and actually was one of the first open-source projects to provide initial support for it (nodemcu was closed-source at that time). Contributions are welcome. We're also looking for sponsorship opportunities to provide top-notch support for it, but so far it didn't work out.

by pfalcon 11y ago

mianos 11y ago

I put pulls in but it seems they don't want to accept stuff that does not work like the rest of the platforms supported. Perfectly reasonable I think but the fact that there is not a way to set the wifi mode in micropython is a bit slack. They didn't want that most recent pull of mine. I'll put my whole interrupt driven framework on a fork on an share it in case anyone is interested.

pfalcon 11y ago
I see. Well, I hope that indeed can be understood - merging code to mainline which is known as requiring a rework means breaking some people's code later. In this situation, maintaining a fork till more momentum is gathered and issues are resolved does make a sense. But please keep in touch (e.g. via MicroPython forum) - alone knowing that you keep working on it and it does work for you is a good motivation for other folks to not drop the ball with this port (and for new folks to pick it up).
- mianos 11y ago
  I can perfectly understand why changes would not be wanted. It's no big deal at all. That's said. The project vastly underestimates the impact the ESP8266 has had and will have. IMHO that chip and those that follow in its footsteps will revolutionize the industry in more ways than the 100 STM32 projects ever did. It's more like the Aduino viral like impact on hobbyists. As much as it's a flakey POS, it's not as pathetic as the ATMEL chips and I'm jumping on the bandwagon.
  - pfalcon 11y ago
    > changes would not be wanted. Changes are wanted - very much. But clean changes adhering to MicroPython coding standards. So, if you have time and/or need to support ESP8266, please keep sending patches and working on elaborating them. In the meantime, more people appear to want to work on STM, TI and other chips, however you or me may find it strange. Probably because those chips already have been having impact on the industry - for number of last several years, and ESP8266 yet to show that impact. All in all, MicroPython embraces ESP8266 and actually was one of the first open-source projects to provide initial support for it (nodemcu was closed-source at that time). Contributions are welcome. We're also looking for sponsorship opportunities to provide top-notch support for it, but so far it didn't work out.