Those tech bros should just...stop.

SBC is already cheap enough that you can throwaway without caring anything. Stop bloating MCU with....useless stuff.

If anyone suggest me "Python in mcu" professionally, i would never be able to trust them again.

We aren't in the 1980's any longer, most of these systems are way more powerful than a typical 16 bit home computer, and incrediblly as it sounds, those 16 bit home computers still had better tooling than most MCUs have nowadays.

Anything that brings MCU tooling into the 21st century is very much welcomed.

	▲	teamonkey an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I haven't yet shook the feeling I got when I first realised my thermostat has more processing power than the computer I had as a child. But also the devices this OS is aimed at will often be doing more than those computers were ever capable of, such as driving a full-colour display with touch interface while running a web server and wireless networking stack.
	▲	pkphilip 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Agreed. It is really nice to have an OS like this. It will get a lot more people involved in the development. I would even think of scaling this up to more powerful processors and perhaps have it even on smartphones.

▲

nunobrito an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Look, I'm with you on those critics and my opinion about python in general is just "duh" but this project looks good, it is easy to write/deploy and looks well documented (need to test it out).

For apps that are simple, might be OK. I've done a similar operating system which would run C-like scripts (using Wrench) instead of python and came with a command line if you wanted to shell directly into the device but nobody cared: https://github.com/radio3-network/B3OS

At least they've done a far better job in presenting a capable operating system and bringing people to move it further.

▲

daemonologist 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The advantage of micropython is that you don't have to deal with all the poorly maintained toolchains and UART and flashing and whatnot; for a novice working on their own, that stuff is a nearly insurmountable barrier. That the syntax is Python doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

I agree though, probably shouldn't be the first choice for a professional application.

▲

askvictor 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's actually a great first choice for a professional application, in that you can get a prototype up and running much faster than a native SDK, iterate quickly, and try things out on a repl. In fact, it's used in industrial settings, including in medical devices and energy distribution.

▲

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

MicroPython's a bytecode interpreter so, other than the existing Python ecosystem being a huge boon (popularity being a form of strength), you could get many of the same benefits and more from wasm

	▲	pjmlp 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If we forget about the pain that most WASM toolchains happen to be. MicroPython, like most BASIC interpreters in 8 bit days, also allows for inline Assembly. As for running bytecode on MCU that is as old as MCU themselves, wasm doesn't bring anything to table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Stamp
	▲	Rohansi 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You can actually opt-in to native compilation on a function level so it's not just a bytecode interpreter. You can also compile it yourself with additional functionality written in C/C++ and just use Python for the glue that isn't performance sensitive.

▲

imtringued 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

This software stack targets a $17 ESP-S3 board that comes with an integrated touch screen, 8 MB of PSRAM and 16 MB of flash.

https://www.waveshare.com/esp32-s3-touch-lcd-2.htm