<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Timon Gehr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:timon.gehr@gmx.ch" target="_blank">timon.gehr@gmx.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 07/14/2012 04:44 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen <<a href="mailto:alex@lycus.org" target="_blank">alex@lycus.org</a><br></div><div><div class="h5">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:alex@lycus.org" target="_blank">alex@lycus.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
On 14-07-2012 12:48, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:<br>
<br>
I just got an amazing thought. If we end up getting a D<br>
front-end in D,<br>
I think it would be possible to make the back-end in the same<br>
space as<br>
the code being compiled. This means, having the back-end as a<br>
library<br>
solution. This would automatically provide 100% compile-time code<br>
introspection. This is just a thought. Not a proposal or<br>
anything. What<br>
do you guys think?<br>
<br>
--<br>
Bye,<br>
Gor Gyolchanyan.<br>
<br>
<br>
I can't tell if you're advocating writing a back end in D as well.<br>
If you are, I am strongly against this. There's a reason it has<br>
taken 10 years for LLVM to get where it is, and it's still far from<br>
complete. We have better things to do with development of D than<br>
reinventing the wheel.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Alex Rønne Petersen<br></div></div>
<a href="mailto:alex@lycus.org" target="_blank">alex@lycus.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alex@lycus.org" target="_blank">alex@lycus.org</a>><div class="im"><br>
<a href="http://lycus.org" target="_blank">http://lycus.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
I didn't expect D to have it. D follows tons of anti-patterns, that<br>
other languages have followed. It's yet another language with yet<br>
another set of insignificant changes. It IS the best one of all, but<br>
it's not even close to being at least minimally useful for a really big<br>
task.<br>
<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
Big words.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
For instance, everybody seems to love hard-wiring the syntax into the<br>
language.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Insignificant example.<br>
<br>
Every language _needs_ to have a standard source storage format.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Big words? Some languages are pretty much useless for generic type-agnostic code. They either limit to compile-time templates (eliminating polymorphism) or just refuse to support it. Other languages are obsessed with dynamic typing (like Python), which eliminate modeling power.<div>
<br></div><div>And where is the progress here? Same semi-useful type system as C++ with a few sprinkles on it.</div><div><div><br></div>-- <br>Bye,<br>Gor Gyolchanyan.<br>
</div>