Next Article in Journal
Multiple Working Condition Bearing Fault Diagnosis Method Based on Channel Segmentation Improved Residual Network
Next Article in Special Issue
Dual-Core PLC for Cooperating Projects with Software Implementation
Previous Article in Journal
Design of a New Capacitive Load Cross-Coupled Cavity Filter
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rider in the Loop Dynamic Motorcycle Simulator: An Instrumentation Strategy Focused on Human Acceptability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Electronics
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/electronics12010143
Review Report
electronics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Performance Evaluation of C/C++, MicroPython, Rust and TinyGo Programming Languages on ESP32 Microcontroller

Electronics 2023, 12(1), 143; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12010143
by Ignas Plauska, Agnius Liutkevičius * and Audronė Janavičiūtė
Reviewer 2:
Issa Atoum
Electronics 2023, 12(1), 143; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12010143
Submission received: 25 November 2022 / Revised: 16 December 2022 / Accepted: 22 December 2022 / Published: 28 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Hardware-Software Codesign)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As stated, this paper "evaluates the efficiency of the available ESP32 programming languages, namely 16 C/C+, MicroPython, Rust, and TinyGo, by comparing their execution performance".

The paper is well written and the structure is fine. References as suitable.

The focus os this paper are the ESP32 microcontrollers, that are indeed very used and useful fir the development of IoT solutions when low processing is acceptable and low consumption is needed. I believe that authors wanted to analyze if others programming languages more user friendly could be used, with successfully performance, comparing to the C/C++ official compiler supported by ESP32.

The authors made tests are suitable for check the performance of the programming languages. The results are probably, in my opinion, expected since the beginning. The same for the overview of the several programming languages (table1). 

The paper is a logical, fine and interesting work. Still I have difficulty in see the contribution of the paper beyond the expected results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors.

Thanks for submitting this work. The paper is good but it has some crucial pionts are necessary.

 

Points in favor

+ Well-structured method

+ well-analyzed model.

 

Points against:

- Algorithms used for comparison, why they were selected, and how we chose the parameters for comparison. Need more details similar to table 2.

-Format issues in text table headers.

 

Detailed feedback:

Section 2.2 "Five algorithms were chosen for comparison: popular hash functions CRC-32 and 211 SHA-256, and three signal processing functions FFT, IIR and FIR."

please detail why they were selected, and how we chose the parameters for comparison. Need more details similar to table 2.

 

please provide detail of your methodology in a figure to provide proper streamlining with the current methodology and results

 

Please provide the conclusion section. it is missing!

 

Limitations, Threats to validity are crucial for this work. Kindly include at least one section for each of these sections

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revision have improved the paper.

Back to TopTop