ClojureC, a compiler for Clojure that targets C as a backend

Re:ClojureC, a compiler for Clojure that targets C as a backend by smosher on Saturday May 04, 2013 @09:40PM (#5657091)

More moving parts being more error prone is not generally a controversial opinion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ClojureC, a compiler for Clojure that targets C as a backend by vidarh on Saturday May 04, 2013 @09:55PM (#5657128)

This argument can just as easily be used to support a claim that generating C via string manipulation can very well be less error prone than relying on a huge, complex API like LLVM.

It is not a given that there are "more moving parts" in generating C output from a compiler than in using LLVM.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ClojureC, a compiler for Clojure that targets C as a backend by coldtea on Sunday May 05, 2013 @02:56PM (#5659328)

>It is not a given that there are "more moving parts" in generating C output from a compiler than in using LLVM.

No, but it's a given that the LLVM moving parts have been already written, and are tested by millions.

Your moving parts in your own solution, you'd have to write yourself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ClojureC, a compiler for Clojure that targets C as a backend by vidarh on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:14AM (#5667465)

The LLVM moving-parts, yes, but you need to write code to use them too, and it's not a give that there are more moving parts in generating C output that those.

> Your moving parts in your own solution, you'd have to write yourself.

That's not always a bad thing for error rates, if the alternative is figuring out to use a massive library correctly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ClojureC, a compiler for Clojure that targets C as a backend by smosher on Saturday May 04, 2013 @11:04PM (#5657293)

It is not a given that there are "more moving parts" in generating C output from a compiler than in using LLVM.

While that's a true enough statement by itself, your snipe conveniently skips half of the process in question.

[ Parent | on HN ]