Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Lua Scripting Support Being Added To NetBSD Kernel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,912

    Default Lua Scripting Support Being Added To NetBSD Kernel

    Phoronix: Lua Scripting Support Being Added To NetBSD Kernel

    Support for the Lua scripting language is being added to the NetBSD kernel so that it's possible to interact with the BSD kernel's various subsystems using this popular scripting language. With a Lua interpreter being added to the kernel, it's even possible to extend the kernel's subsystems in this scripting language...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMwMTU

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    828

    Default

    The NetBSD devs noted that they plan to write their nouveau graphics driver in Lua since you don't have to deal with memory leaks any longer, which makes it superior to the Linux implementation. Also parts of ZFS and the audio stack will be ported to Lua for its advanced flexibility and productivity compared to C.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    399

    Default

    This is actually pretty cool. I just hope they use a fast interpreter or JIT compiler. I have microbenchmarked LuaJIT and was utterly impressed by the speed of the code. It was more often than not faster than GCC or Clang compiled C++.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    This is actually pretty cool. I just hope they use a fast interpreter or JIT compiler. I have microbenchmarked LuaJIT and was utterly impressed by the speed of the code. It was more often than not faster than GCC or Clang compiled C++.
    How can Lua (LuaJIT) be so fast?

    Anyone ever wrote a kernel in Lua?

    There is an operating systems such as JNode and JX which are written in Java.
    Singularity, Cosmos and SharpOS which are written in C#.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    How can Lua (LuaJIT) be so fast?

    Anyone ever wrote a kernel in Lua?

    There is an operating systems such as JNode and JX which are written in Java.
    Singularity, Cosmos and SharpOS which are written in C#.
    I personally had no clue why it was so fast, which made myself all the more interested in it. I am guessing that it is just very, very highly optimized for speed. You also have to remember just how small of a language Lua is. Since it is so small, my guess is that it is far easier to optimize each operation. Using the official interpreter often took five minutes to do what LuaJIT did for me in ~16 seconds. For that same benchmark, GCC took about 22 seconds and Clang 26 seconds. If you want the code for my microbenchmarks, ask and I can post it on Pastebin.

    I'm not sure if anyone has written a kernel in Lua, but for a while I was considering doing so myself. I don't think it would be very difficult at all. In fact, it would probably be significantly easier than Java or C#.
    Last edited by LinuxID10T; 02-14-2013 at 11:10 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    maybe they can add a web browser and an email client while they are at it

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    In NetBSD the word "kernel" has lost its meaning.

    "Kernel" means "hard durable core"

    NetBSD has no "kernel" any more, it's soft mush all the way to the middle.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default horrible

    language interpreters are "infinite bug sponges". You squeeze them and bugs pour out. You can squeeze and squeeze for years and you will get an unending stream of bugs. Don't believe me? Look at any "mature" interpreted language, go visit its bug database. This is bad because kernels are supposed to be sanctuaries of quality code, not infestations of bugs.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Is this 1985 or something? What is the point of interpreting? Why not just recompile? We all have gigahertz processors and we use SS drives. It's not like it takes hours to recompile a kernel module like it did back in the 80's. We have awesome debugging tools now, so debugging kernel code is not the nightmare it was in 1985. vmware kernel modules compile themselves and install in a minute, and they are very extensive. I think these BSD people live in some distant past.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    285

    Default

    that's the stupiest idea i heard in a long long time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •