Hello everyone, hello Gordon,
I'm Thomas from neonious. Just noticed this thread (Google).
Regarding your post: you are incorrect with that the async functions of low.js will block somewhere. low.js provides 100% async read/writes. The async calls go into a different thread, which does not block the code thread. The neonious one even utilizes an additional SPI flash chip for the file system, so there is no call to esp_partition_read/write or whatever which would block.
Regarding speed of byte code vs source code, the following code runs multiple minutes with Espruino, while it only runs for 5 secs on low.js:
var k = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
for(var j = 0; j < 1000; j++)
k += j;
console.log('Done', k);
Over all, we're trying to be 100% truthful, so if you see anything wrong in our comparison on our website, please tell me exactly what we shall change.
Thank you,
Thomas
Espruino is a JavaScript interpreter for low-power Microcontrollers. This site is both a support community for Espruino and a place to share what you are working on.
Hello everyone, hello Gordon,
I'm Thomas from neonious. Just noticed this thread (Google).
Regarding your post: you are incorrect with that the async functions of low.js will block somewhere. low.js provides 100% async read/writes. The async calls go into a different thread, which does not block the code thread. The neonious one even utilizes an additional SPI flash chip for the file system, so there is no call to esp_partition_read/write or whatever which would block.
Regarding speed of byte code vs source code, the following code runs multiple minutes with Espruino, while it only runs for 5 secs on low.js:
Over all, we're trying to be 100% truthful, so if you see anything wrong in our comparison on our website, please tell me exactly what we shall change.
Thank you,
Thomas