Hi NuttX maintainers,
Same honest framing as I would give any RTOS: URML (urml.dev, a small Apache-2.0 robot-intent language) lives well above the OS, and validation mostly happens off the microcontroller. What brings me to NuttX in particular is two things: the POSIX-compatible API, and the fact that PX4 runs on NuttX while URML already maps onto PX4 as a substrate. So there is an existing, concrete path here rather than a hypothetical.
The seam is execution. A minimal URML executor (RFC-0018, our constrained-target shape) runs an already-validated plan, and NuttX's POSIX-like surface is a friendly host for one. Because the PX4-on-NuttX stack is real and URML already targets PX4, the most sensible first look is probably right there rather than in the abstract.
Two questions: does NuttX's POSIX compatibility make it a natural host for a small pre-validated intent executor on constrained targets? And given the existing PX4-on-NuttX path, is that the right concrete place to examine this, rather than a generic NuttX integration?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0581-nuttx-outreach.md
Thanks for NuttX; the POSIX discipline is exactly what makes hosting a small executor tractable, and the PX4 connection makes it more than theoretical.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.
Hi NuttX maintainers,
Same honest framing as I would give any RTOS: URML (urml.dev, a small Apache-2.0 robot-intent language) lives well above the OS, and validation mostly happens off the microcontroller. What brings me to NuttX in particular is two things: the POSIX-compatible API, and the fact that PX4 runs on NuttX while URML already maps onto PX4 as a substrate. So there is an existing, concrete path here rather than a hypothetical.
The seam is execution. A minimal URML executor (RFC-0018, our constrained-target shape) runs an already-validated plan, and NuttX's POSIX-like surface is a friendly host for one. Because the PX4-on-NuttX stack is real and URML already targets PX4, the most sensible first look is probably right there rather than in the abstract.
Two questions: does NuttX's POSIX compatibility make it a natural host for a small pre-validated intent executor on constrained targets? And given the existing PX4-on-NuttX path, is that the right concrete place to examine this, rather than a generic NuttX integration?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0581-nuttx-outreach.md
Thanks for NuttX; the POSIX discipline is exactly what makes hosting a small executor tractable, and the PX4 connection makes it more than theoretical.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.