Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Dave Angel <davea@davea.name>
Subject: Re: Best Scripting Language for Embedded Work?
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:44:48 -0400
References: <h7ept85p7jtc5e7j2ubl66k604d7cln3hs@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
In-Reply-To: <h7ept85p7jtc5e7j2ubl66k604d7cln3hs@4ax.com>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.4481.1373420706.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 58
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:50290

On 07/09/2013 09:29 PM, David T. Ashley wrote:
> We develop embedded software for 32-bit micros using Windows as the
> development platform.
>
> We are seeking a general purpose scripting language to automate
> certain tasks, like cleaning out certain directories of certain types
> of files in preparation for ZIP'ing, generating certain source files
> automatically, etc.
>
> Selection criteria:
>
> a)Should be able to compile the script interpreter as a monolithic
> executable (no .DLL dependencies, etc.) for easy versioning and
> distribution of the script interpreter.

Oh, I thought you were going to run this on Windows.  You're just 
developing it on Windows, and you want to cross-compile to target some 
other platform?  Which?


>  (Note that I'm not asking
> that the script be a single executable, just the interpreter.  To run
> a script you'd need both the script and the interpreter.  The script
> would be a text file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.)

If you're also constraining your "program" to a single text file, you 
don't want Python.  It uses modules, imported from your script to do 
much of the work.

>
> b)Should be extensible, in that one could add commands or library
> functions to the script interpreter in C (for efficiency), and the
> whole script interpreter could again consist of a single executable
> with no other dependencies.  (Note that I'm not asking that the script
> be a single executable, just the interpreter.  To run a script you'd
> need both the script and the interpreter.  The script would be a text
> file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.)

And that's supposed to HELP efficiency??

>
> c)Should be able to spawn compilers and capture the output, do file
> I/O, and all the other minor expected stuff.
>
> d)Graphical capability would be nice.
>
> I know that Tcl/Tk would do all of the above,

I doubt it.

> but what about Python?
> Any other alternatives?



-- 
DaveA