Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Contiki OS Network Regression Test Framework

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the tiny-tests dept.

Open Source 13

An anonymous reader writes "Contiki, the open source operating system for the Internet of Things, just got a regression test framework ported over from Thingsquare Mist that allows the Contiki developers to test the entire system on 9 platforms, 4 CPU architectures, and 1021 network nodes, for every new commit."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Internet of Things (2)

kc67 (2789711) | about 2 years ago | (#42263499)

Very descriptive term for an operating system. Ubuntu should be the open source operating system for the Purchasing of Things.

How is this news(tm)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263683)

Looks like linkbait for some vaguely-defined project that would probably define itself as "disruptive." This isn't a release, an actual feature in the product, or even anything new in terms of test frameworks.

Pity they dropped the only architecture I was inte (2)

marcovje (205102) | about 2 years ago | (#42263743)

Pity they dropped the only architecture I was interested in

Re:Pity they dropped the only architecture I was i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264327)

http://contiki.cbm8bit.com/
Which arch?

Re:Pity they dropped the only architecture I was i (1)

Trixter (9555) | about 2 years ago | (#42266267)

16-bit x86 :-(

Contiki is still around? (1)

ickleberry (864871) | about 2 years ago | (#42264431)

I had the misfortune of having to use it last year on a tmote sky. Nearly every piece of hardware it supports is obsolete, also the API is incredibly poorly documented. Most of their documentation consists of functions listed with no description. Gah!!

Re:Contiki is still around? (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#42270561)

Welcome to MSDN :)

Why C? (0)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 years ago | (#42264547)

I find it pretty weired that they use C instead of a well defined subset of C++ for a modern framework.

I really doubt that from an academic stanpoint the term framework even applies, it looks like a set of APIs and libraries to me. Or does the linux kernel quallify as a framework, too?

Anyway I don't use frameworks/libraries/languages that are neither oo nor functional, my time is me to valuable.

Re:Why C? (1)

hakey (1227664) | about 2 years ago | (#42266949)

It's designed to run on microcontrollers with kilobytes of RAM. C++ and OO are possible, but C tends to fit better.

Re:Why C? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42266969)

I find it pretty weired that they use C instead of a well defined subset of C++ for a modern framework.

There's nothing weird about using the one of the most common and portable programming languages. There are C compilers for virtually every CPU architecture, but usable C++ compilers are far more rare. A usable, portable subset of C++ would probably just be C with virtual functions and overloading. Not worth it.

I really doubt that from an academic stanpoint the term framework even applies, it looks like a set of APIs and libraries to me. Or does the linux kernel quallify as a framework, too?

Embedded operating systems often look like libraries. When you have less than 128KB of program space (if that) and no MMU, many of the boundaries normally seen between a desktop/server OS and program disappear. Embedded OSes are often statically linked to the programs that run on them because dynamic linking would be a waste of memory.

Anyway I don't use frameworks/libraries/languages that are neither oo nor functional, my time is me to valuable.

The best way to use your time is by using the right tool for the job. Just like how assembly or Fortran would be terrible for web development, using Perl or Ruby would also be terrible for a microcontroller. (Assuming you can even get them running!)

I'm sure the Contiki developers also find their time to be valuable. That's why they didn't bother with a less-reliable-across-architectures OO language or a toy embedded functional language. With C they save time by having to do less work porting and debugging those ports. Contiki probably wouldn't be running on even half as many architectures if they used any other language.

Re:Why C? (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#42270569)

Anyway I don't use frameworks/libraries/languages that are neither oo nor functional, my time is me to valuable.

Not functional??? Have you ever even programmed in C?

Re:Why C? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 years ago | (#42278051)

Yes I have, and your question simply shows you don't know what "functional" means.

Hint: go to wikipedia and look for "functional programming language", you won't find C there.

Re:Why C? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42278459)

Wow English & computing diverge! So all those programming languages are pretty much procedural whereas C is pure functions no OO just functions but its not counted as a functional programming language! Which tards decide these matters?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?