Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:43:24 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com> To: "<dteske@FreeBSD.org>" <dteske@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "<freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@freebsd.org>, Pedro Arthur <bygrandao@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Lua in the bootloader Message-ID: <5FE57E4E-A627-4ABA-AB73-F0D60A3602D5@ixsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <16e101cfbfee$42b3b930$c81b2b90$@FreeBSD.org> References: <3D62F4F4-ECCF-4622-BB57-D028160F3451@freebsd.org> <157901cfbe83$6cbf18d0$463d4a70$@FreeBSD.org> <A87AA9EB-373F-400E-986E-4D9017EB2375@freebsd.org> <16e101cfbfee$42b3b930$c81b2b90$@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> limitations that I battle in Forth are significant enough > that I'd like to see if Lua can break said chains (such as > "dictionary full" errors causing BTX halt -- induced simply > by adding "too many functions" in Forth). I'm not one to stand in the way of progress either, but just to make sure we= are not foolishly conflating "language" with "environment" here: You do al= l realize that ficl can have any sized dictionary you want, right? Presumab= ly, it's kept small due to the limitations of the boot loader environment, a= nd Lua is not going to magically transcend those limitations. Writing lots o= f boot code in Lua will require memory, perhaps even MORE memory since, say w= hat you like about Forth, it's hard to get more concise or compact than a Fo= rth dictionary of compiled CFA's. That's why we picked it for the role in t= he first place.=20 So anyway, first try expanding the size of the dictionary. If that can't be d= one, now you know your "ceiling" for Lua. Can you stay below it, not just n= ow but longer term? Those are the questions you need to answer. - Jordan=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5FE57E4E-A627-4ABA-AB73-F0D60A3602D5>