docs: berry vs micropython comparaison/benchmark

[mat-c]

Documentation URL

No response

Description

Is that possible to have a comparison between berry and micropython ?

Can micropython be configured to be equivalent of berry in term of memory fooprint/bridge with C code.

Code of Conduct

Yes, I agree

[peterhinch]

Converted to discussion as this is not a MP bug report.

[Josverl]

What berry?

Not trying to put you off, but I really don't know what you mean

[robert-hh]

Neft others Berry is the name of just another scripting language.

[mat-c]

https://berry-lang.github.io/

That what is used for example is tasmota (Open source firmware for ESP devices) for scripting. For example they implemented a part of the Matter stack with the help of berry.

Berry is a ultra-lightweight dynamically typed embedded scripting language. It is designed for lower-performance embedded devices. The Berry interpreter-core’s code size is less than 40KiB and can run on less than 4KiB heap (on ARM Cortex M4 CPU, Thumb ISA and ARMCC compiler).

The interpreter of Berry include a one-pass compiler and register-based VM, all the code is written in ANSI C99. In Berry not every type is a class object. Some simple value types, such as int, real, boolean and string are not class object, but list, map and range are class object. This is a consideration about performance. Register-based VM is the same meaning as above

RAM required
extreme: 4 KB
low: 8 KB
recommended: ≥16 KB
ROM/Flash required
extreme: 64 KB
low: 128 KB
recommended: ≥256 KB

[scruss]

Is that possible to have a comparison between berry and micropython ?

The Berry docs has: short comparison of Berry and MicroPython syntax

Can micropython be configured to be equivalent of berry in term of memory fooprint/bridge with C code.

MicroPython can run on a ATSAMD21E18 (32 K RAM, 256 K flash) or a STM32L072xx (20 K RAM, 192 K flash).