Re: Naked LUA

[Ruan Kendall <shearwater+lua@...>]

Once you've binned most of what makes Lua the language it is, is there
any practical reason to use the carcass that's left over? Perhaps a
simpler language is in order.

Traditionally, one might use Forth ;-)

On 27 July 2010 08:50, Zomirp Cila <zomirp.cila@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm bothered with large footprint.
>
> I'm LUA fan for a decade now (introduced to me with Girder software) and
> this is the first time I think about porting.
> Anyway... what I need is interpreter or script engine to run on various
> platforms with lowest footprint as possible, 16kB max.
> Yes 16kB, but I have very few requests: I don't need provided libs or
> garbage collection. Loop control (for, while), conditionals (if, else),
> function calls, simple computing (only 32bit ints - add, sub, OR, AND, XOR)
> and native function calls are enough.
> OK, now that I've written them looks more that it seemed in my head... but
> still is a lot less than LUA provides.
>
> So... my question is can LUA be compiled bare naked, only execution flow
> parser without any libs (ie various type support)?
> I've gone through sources and from the first look of it seems like a lot of
> changes to sources.
> Has anybody thought about splitting LUA into block parts that can be enabled
> or disabled in sources like that yet?
>
> Why I need this you ask? I would like to download engine and simple script
> to various microcontrollers (via CAN, USB etc.) in runtime and execute it
> (ie for diagnostic purposes).
>
> I'll appreciate any other thoughts on the subject.
>
> PA
>