top | item 43451760

Mruby/C and picoruby: high level langs in low-level devices?

70 points| rahil627 | 11 months ago |github.com

30 comments

order

throwaway81523|11 months ago

No idea about mruby/C or picoruby but MicroPython is very popular, enough that I'd just settle on it for devices can handle it. It runs nicely in 256k of flash and 32k of ram, on the small adafruit trinket devices. It was shoehorned into the v1 BBC microbit which had 256k of flash and just 16k of ram, but that was apparently painful.

Smaller include Lua and maybe Hedgehog Lisp. Below that there is ulisp but that is sort of a toy. Also there is Javacard and J2ME depending on device size.

Below that you're probably best off forgoing garbage collection and using Forth or a cross compiled language.

rahil627|11 months ago

ah yeah, i forgot about Lua! that's def the way to go.

jononor|11 months ago

Will have to look closer at picoruby. I do love MicroPython development. One support thing is how easy it is to combine with C, because to get the most out of microcontroller devices one really needs to use low-level languages from time to time.

calebh|11 months ago

I'm the developer of Juniper, a functional reactive programming language for the Arduino. It's very possible to run high level code on small devices. This even includes things like closures, which Juniper allocates on the stack!

https://www.juniper-lang.org/

rahil627|11 months ago

eyyyyy F#! microsoft's best language.

hmmm, transpiling to C/C++ def makes sense! I'd wonder if haxe (lang) would work fine too then..!

very cool project!

aidog|11 months ago

picoruby is a lot of fun. It's a reimplementation of mruby/c which is even smaller. You might be interested in my friend and creator HASUMI Hitoshi's presentation. He shows off his Ruby REPL that runs on the Raspberry Pi pico. Recently he ported picoruby to other microcontrollers.

https://youtu.be/WxZNE5zTAjg?si=7DQUcQg80RMZoU0b

rahil627|11 months ago

thank you for this!! I <3 Taiwan. lol star wars font. I knew he was special from his GitHub photo XD

rahil627|11 months ago

oooooooooooh snap! irb/ruby repl on a micro-controller is soooo sick!!

bsder|11 months ago

256KB ROM/128KB RAM isn't very small.

That is larger than the average computer through about 1990 ...

(I know people will say I'm being pedantic. However, RAM and Flash define most of the price of a microcontroller. So, a factor of two--especially in RAM--means a significantly smaller and cheaper chip.)

connicpu|11 months ago

Depends on use case for sure, though I'm not sure why you'd want an interpreted language on a microcontroller unless you had plans to be able to execute dynamically loaded code in the field, which probably means it has some kind of network connection, and 256KB ROM/128KB RAM isn't too big for your Espressif chips and such.

tecleandor|11 months ago

Yeah, but 1990 was 35 years ago and Ruby even didn't exist. And the average computer was quite bigger than a RP2040, and consumed much more power :)

I mean, it's very difficult to compare those things. It's a high level language runtime weighting a very small fraction of the JavaScript we're loading on any silly webpage, and we can run in on an stamp sized microcontroller that costs a couple dollars and you'd typically need to program using a relatively low level language.

I think it's neat.

Edit: I was trying to remember our computer then. I think we already had an Amstrad PC1512 with 512KB of RAM by '87 or '88, and by 1990 the 286s with 1 or 2MB of RAM were already common.

rahil627|11 months ago

some people hate to use C. Some people embrace it, even love it (including many game devs!). You have full control! But i wonder, what do HN folks think about these pico implementations of ruby, a complex language made for the tiniest devices, such as sensors? I mean.. is C really that bad??

also, it's very cool they're still being maintained!

pjmlp|11 months ago

It is a return to the age when we had BASIC and Z80/6502 Assembly, and yes doing memcpy/strcpy all over the place instead of having proper arrays and strings is that bad.

At very least, C++.

"C++14 For The Commodore 64"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLv_INgaLq8

RossBencina|11 months ago

I don't think C is bad at all. One good thing about C is that the language is quite minimal, the same can not be said for the current batch of contenders (Zig, Rust). Another good thing about C is that it has strong separation of language standard from implementations, with many implementations provided by diverse suppliers. I also prefer the "batteries not included" philosophy. Obviously C is not without warts (e.g. logical operators precedence).

I will leave it to others to fill out the cons. One obvious one is that C does not reflect the parallel compute nature of modern targets (e.g. SIMD) but neither do most serious alternatives.

I do think the time is coming (if not already here) where it would be judged legally negligent to professionally employ C in new systems for certain use-cases (network facing, high assurance, ...). At least not without complete formal verification. I'll leave it to the actuaries to work out where the tipping point is.

nine_k|11 months ago

Make a few small mistakes, even typos, and C becomes really that bad, because you have full control, no restraints, few guard rails.

C trades very fast execution for rather slow development, especially of larger code bases, if you want correctness. It's fine for tiny programs though.

(Ruby, of course, has its own set of jolly footguns, as any dynamically typed language.)

knowitnone|11 months ago

Then you should use assembly. I mean..is assembly really that bad?

actionfromafar|11 months ago

Time to mention Shedskin Python to C++ compiler!