built-in scripting languages

[Redvers Davies]

Sorry, I have to completely disagree with you.

On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 11:21 +0100, Tomasz Zielinski wrote:
> I'm affraid of using interpreted and dynamically typed languages in
> embedded environment, like cellphone. Especially when using GSM API --
> it's much easier to omit bug in interpreted language on embedded
> device than compiled one.

Blatently untrue.

Bugs are introduced by human error.  High level languages means that
humans do less work at the cost of lower performance and space.  Less
work means less opportunity to introduce bugs.

In Perl,Python,Ruby,Lua you typically don't have to Check bounds, do
type casting, pointer arithmetic etc etc. A simple look at any of
mailing list for a decient C project shows that even mature C/C++
developers create these types of bugs all the time.  It goes with the
territory.

> Cellphones we know have GUI so strictly bounded to phone we don't even
> mention it. One display check and you know what happens with
> connection. OpenMoko will (probably) bahave differently -- man can
> even not notice at all that call is active. So if your script calls
> somewhere then fails silently, you will pay a lot.

With all the love in the world, this is FUD.

Regards,



Red