xdc: A hypothetical D cross-compiler and AST manipulation tool.

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/11/13 5:53 PM, Chad Joan wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 November 2013 at 21:45:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 11/9/13 9:14 AM, nazriel wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 01:21:44 UTC, Chad Joan wrote:
>>>> I'd like to present my vision for a new D compiler.  I call it xdc, a
>>>> loose abbreviation for "Cross D Compiler" (if confused, see
>>>> ...
>>>> Thank you for reading.
>>>
>>> I think C backend is a good idea.
>>
>> I think C is not a good back-end language. Other backend generators
>> usually have a white paper explaining why... http://www.cminusminus.org/
>>
>> Andrei
>
> What would you suggest as an alternative for targeting disparate
> hardware like microcontrollers (ALL of them), newly released game
> consoles, and legacy platforms that could use D for migration tools
> (like OpenVMS on IA64)?
>
> Oh, and I want instantaneous release times.  I need to be able to stick
> the compiler on a machine it has NEVER seen and say, "Use POSIX
> libraries to fulfill Phobos' deps.  Use reference counting.  DO WORK!".
> Or maybe I would say, "Ditch Phobos, we in da sticks.  Use reference
> counting.  GOGOGO!"  And I want to be running my D program 5 minutes later.
>
> Let me initially dismiss these:
> LLVM: not /everywhere/ yet, and missing on many of the targets I mentioned.
> C--: also not everywhere; this is the first I've heard of it.
> Java/Javascript/.NET: Actually also good backends, but a different
> ecosystems.
>
> Thus, I suggest that C is an AWESOME backend (with C++ for exceptions,
> but ONLY if it's available).  Destroy :)

Fine with me. I have no stake in this. I don't see how you reach the 
conclusion that C is "awesome" given it makes exceptions tenuous to 
implement. It does have the advantage of being universally available. If 
that's everything you need, sure.

Andrei