Compilation strategy

[foobar]

On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky 
wrote:
> 12/19/2012 1:33 AM, Walter Bright пишет:
>> On 12/18/2012 11:58 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> The same bytecode then could be be used for external 
>>> representation.
>>
>> Sigh, there is (again) no point to an external bytecode.
>
> BTW In the end I think I was convinced that bytecode won't buy 
> D much. Esp considering the cost of maintaining a separate spec 
> for it and making sure both are in sync.

This argument is bogus. One of the goals of bytecode formats is 
to provide a common representation for many languages. That is 
one of the state goals for MS' CIL and LLVM. So while it's 
definitely true that maintaining and *additional* format and spec 
adds considerable costs, but more importantly this is incorrect 
when *reusing already existing* such formats, not to mention the 
benefits of interoperability with other supported languages and 
platforms.
Consider, calling Java libraries from JRuby, using C# code in F# 
projects, etc.

Say I want to use both Haskel and D in the same project, How 
would I do it? Using LLVM I should be able to - both GHC and LDC 
are based on LLVM.