GSoC Project : Package Micro-python

Fri Mar 26 00:16:14 UTC 2021

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 1:43 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:38 AM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawan51 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:34 AM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:16 PM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawan51 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Apologies for the late reply.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:27 PM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:33 PM Eshan Dhawan <
> eshandhawan51 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > Hello Everyone,
> >> >>> >> > I wanted to take Packaging Micro Python up as GSOC project
> this summer and the project will also include packaging LUA and picoC
> >> >>> >> > The ticket for Micro Python  :
> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4349
> >> >>> >> > What would be the complete Scope of the project?
> >> >>> >> > And what would be a good starting point?
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Well, I guess Joel must have described the task, so I'll leave
> it to
> >> >>> >> him to fill in some more details.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Adding RSB packages may be not sufficient coding work for GSoC.
> It is
> >> >>> >> important in the proposal to identify what would be the coding
> >> >>> >> activities involved in this project. For example, we know from
> >> >>> >> experience that Lua can just be built from some minor tailoring
> of its
> >> >>> >> Makefile, so the package is very straightforward. However, the
> >> >>> >> projects you mention are scripting environments, so maybe
> creating a
> >> >>> >> framework in RTEMS for a "shell/intepreter" that can be built as
> an
> >> >>> >> add-on by RSB would be a proper way to scope this effort
> >> >
> >> > Packaging might not be a lot of coding part but adding its
> documentation and its example would be a very iterative and time consuming
> process.
> >>
> >> Remember that code is what counts, while we expect the other stuff to
> >> come along too, you don't want to be doing 90% doco and 10% code. Just
> >> keep it in mind.
> >
> > What would be a good inclusion to this project ?
> > I was thinking long double support since I worked on porting POSIX
> functions I might find it easier.
> > But it might interfere with matt's project if I understand that project
> correctly.
>
> Right, please don't include that. You'll want to think/talk through
> (with Joel, maybe) what could be good code contributions. If the RSB
> packaging is fairly minimal, then creating a suite of examples might
> be one way to increase the SLOC contributions. I also think there is
> merit to the idea of creating a "plug-in" way to add shells to RTEMS.
> Maybe even refactoring our current shell out to a add-on package then.
> Just a thought.
>

I'd rather see two languages with good packaging, examples for RTEMS use
cases, and documentation. It's a fair project.

If you get through those, we can find another language. TCL probably. I
don't expect Forth or  LISP to be high on the list. Lol

>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I agree that Lua and Micropython should build easy but I had more
> >> >>> > in mind.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The full project was language stacks for RTEMS with a better user
> >> >>> > experience for Micropython, Lua, Tcl, etc although I am not sure
> what
> >> >>> > etc would entail. I am not sure all three can be completed in the
> new
> >> >>> > GSoC timeframe. All would follow the same pattern:
> >> >
> >> > Etc can be managed while framing the proposal according to how time
> is being managed.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > + RSB package offering a reasonable default and access to
> configuration
> >> >>> > + Examples including at least bare embedded, use of custom
> commands,
> >> >>> > and integrating with RTEMS shell commands Perhaps  interactive
> use with
> >> >>> > command line history and editing integrated if we have that as a
> library now.
> >> >>> > + Documentation specific to RTEMS and the examples
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I imagined completely parallel kits for each embedded language we
> wanted
> >> >>> > to support.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Does that help? Should he plan on Micropython and Lua?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sure. Lua should be easy way to get started and develop the
> >> >>> framework/infrastructure side in Phase 1. Phase 2 could be extension
> >> >>> to micropython / other scripting languages.
> >> >
> >> > Since all the languages will have a similar pattern complex work can
> be put in phase 2.
> >> > From my past experience, it is the part when most work is done :)
> >>
> >> True, but for repeat students, we do expect a bit more acceleration in
> >> the first phase. Usually, we want to see code merged in phase 1 by
> >> repeat students. Just a reminder that the bar is higher :)
> >
> > :)
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> OK.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm not sure about the RSB design of things, and whether they should
> >> >>> be parallel or capable of integration. Would anyone want to use
> >> >>> multiple interpreters in the same application? If so, they should
> >> >>> build together to avoid conflicts. If not, parallel is fine.
> >> >
> >> > building them can be set to build flags,
> >> > but there still needs to be a way if we want to build the package
> other than the default way.
> >> > (any ideas on how to do that )
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't see any reason on our side why that shouldn't work but we
> >> >> can't guarantee they don't have symbol conflicts. And I'm not sure
> >> >> it would make much sense to integrate both at the same time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd think you could install both but we'd focus on only using one
> >> >> at a time.
> >> >>
> >> >> --joel
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > --joel
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> > Thanks
> >> >>> >> > - Eshan
> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >>> >> > devel mailing list
> >> >>> >> > devel at rtems.org
> >> >>> >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> >> devel mailing list
> >> >>> >> devel at rtems.org
> >> >>> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20210325/604162dc/attachment.html>