Compilation strategy

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 00:42:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 3:03 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> I know that. I not arguing against that. I'm arguing against 
>> the fact that this
>> is a blocker. This is blocker in very few use cases in fact. I 
>> just look at the
>> whole picture here. People needing that are the exception, not 
>> the rule.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. A blocker for what?
>
>
>> And what prevent us from using a bytecode that loose 
>> information ?
>
> I'd turn that around and ask why have a bytecode?
>

Because it is CTFEable efficiently, without requiring either to 
recompile the source code or even distribute the source code.

>
>> As long as it is CTFEable, most people will be happy.
>
> CTFE needs the type information and AST trees and symbol table. 
> Everything needed for decompilation.
>

You do not need more information that what is in a di file. Java 
and C# put more info in that because of runtime reflection (and 
still, they are tools to strip most of it, no type info, granted, 
but everything else), something we don't need.