Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Open Source BSD

NetBSD To Support Kernel Development In Lua Scripting 311

An anonymous reader writes "NetBSD 7.0 will support the Lua scripting language within its kernel for developing drivers and new sub-systems. A Lua scripting interpreter is being added to the NetBSD kernel along with a kernel API so developers can use this scripting language rather than C for developing new BSD kernel components. Expressed reasons for supporting a scripting language in a kernel were rapid application development, better configuration, and "modifying software written in C is hard for users." In a presentation it was said that Lua in the kernel will let users explore their system in an easy way."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NetBSD To Support Kernel Development In Lua Scripting

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @07:57PM (#42924673)

    Why LUA? Why not implement BASIC while you're at it?

    This is one of the most retarded ideas I have ever heard. I'm sorry, but kernel level stuff should be kept as close to the machine hardware as possible, and that means using C or assembly. Deal with it. If you can't be bothered to learn C like a real goddam programmer, then you have no fucking business sticking your head in something as complicated as an operating system kernel.

    I swear to god, this mentality of "let's appease everyone, including the idiots who aren't smart enough to figure it out as it is right now" needs to stop. If you can't grasp C, then kernels are off limits to you. Either you lack the ambition to learn C, or you're too stupid to comprehend it- in which case you're going to be useless drifting around the kernel source code anyways.

    So what the hell is wrong with saying "no, sorry, you're too stupid to understand this"?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @08:10PM (#42924747)

    So we use it for performance. Ok I get it now.

  • Re:users? (Score:5, Funny)

    by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @08:20PM (#42924811)

    So let's invent a sandboxed layer that can interface with the kernel, but can't do damage to it? Also, make the API stable, unlike innards of the kernel. Let's call this novel idea "userspace" or such.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @08:28PM (#42924873)


  • Re:users? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @08:56PM (#42925069)

    I only have 640 KB you insensitive clod!

  • Tags (Score:5, Funny)

    by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @09:34PM (#42925235)

    Surely this article deserves the whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag more than any other this year. And possibly last year too...

  • Re:users? (Score:3, Funny)

    by aliquis ( 678370 ) <> on Saturday February 16, 2013 @10:20PM (#42925409) Homepage

    The moment you even expect that users should, could, would or even remotely in their most maddened fever dreams WOULD WANT to modify the kernel, you lost it.

    Though it's NetBSD users. Not Apple iPad users.

"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet