5 ms·
The advantage is time. Many (most?) embedded environments are overly difficult (IMHO), and/or proprietary. Also, even in a good environment, C/C++ typically req
by wiremine 9y ago
The advantage is time. Many (most?) embedded environments are overly difficult (IMHO), and/or proprietary. Also, even in a good environment, C/C++ typically requires more lines of code than dynamic languages like Python or JS.
Therefore, the industry has been looking for ways to combat both the below par developer experience, and the development time. Samsung's Jerryscript [1] is another example.
That said, I think these things are aspiration more than they are practical.
[1] http://jerryscript.net/ http://jerryscript.net/
Note: Edited to clarify C++ vs. dynamic languages.
- grive 9y agoSure, I think I see the reasoning behind: reduce the time to market for embedded products. But I'm mostly wondering the actualy benefit of choosing mJS instead of micropython to do so. It seems that both are capable of handling this problem, however mJS seems aiming at a compromise between JS and C, and my opinion on this is that it will introduce huge overheads on any projects. This mostly stems from my being wary of multi-language projects. The process involved in embedded platforms seems heavy enough as it is, no need to blur the lines further.
- wiremine 9y ago> But I'm mostly wondering the actualy benefit of choosing mJS instead of micropython to do so I agree with your concern: to me Micropython seems like a much better choice. On the other hand, it's pretty limited to what hardware it runs on.
- drozd 9y agomJS allows you to use C/C++ SDK functions directly without writing a glue code - basically, you can prototype things quite fast with the libraries/drivers that do not have any scripting support yet.
- unkown-unknowns 9y agoBut why not make that for micropython instead of making a whole new language?
- wiremine 9y agoIdeally you don't want to port the C/C++ over to Python: that's the value proposition of mJS, I think.