Re:No Compiler – On LLVM, and writing software without a com...
by cturner on Friday March 04, 2016 @07:44AM
(#11223373)
Here's the potential I see. Imagine if it was routine to write an application stack entirely in a repl language. Not just the application code - everything. You'd write your application code. Then other functions would dispatch the tree of application code to the LLVM API where it would be compiled. Then other functions could take the resulting artifacts and push them through to deployment.
Doing this at the moment would involve writing fiddly wrappers around lots of layers of technology - dynamically constructing makefiles, and shelling out to call things.
Re:No Compiler – On LLVM, and writing software without a com...
by witty_username on Friday March 04, 2016 @08:14AM
(#11223495)
> But even still, scripting around the AST building functions in LLVM and coding directly to them seems way more annoying to me in the long run. (especially the writing programs part)
Using the IRBuilder to build IR is quite easy in my experience.
Re:No Compiler – On LLVM, and writing software without a com...
by poseid on Friday March 04, 2016 @02:53PM
(#11226444)
I experimented with the gypsum programming language based on Python a while back: https://github.com/jayconrod/gypsum
It indeed is great fun to see recursion at work - yet, I had my first sleepless night due to high concentration of grasping what was going on.
"Writing a parser" sounds really annoying and complicated, but in my admittedly limited experience with ocamlyacc, it was easy peasy and dare I say it, fun!
The hard part I guess was defining the language and maybe that's what he's trying to avoid.
But even still, scripting around the AST building functions in LLVM and coding directly to them seems way more annoying to me in the long run. (especially the writing programs part)
But who knows, maybe I'm missing the point...