CTFE thoughts & functional approach

[Robert M. Münch via Digitalmars-d]

On 2016-01-31 13:59:06 +0000, Robert M. Münch said:

> I like CTFE and the meta programming idea for languages like D.
> 
> However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do 
> meta-programming using the same language as the one getting compiled. 
> IMO the use-cases a pretty different and doing CTFE, code-generation 
> etc. needs some other approach. If you look at all the strange template 
> syntax, strange hacks etc. it's all far from being obvious.
> 
> Why not have a CTL (compile-time-language) that has access to some 
> compiler internals, that follows a more functional concept? We are 
> evaluating sequences of things to generate code, include / exclude code 
> etc.
> 
> From my experience with the different approaches, functional thinking 
> is much better suited and simpler to use for CTFE goals.
> 
> IMO that would really be a big step ahead. Because you know a hammer, 
> not everything is a nail...

Here is a link http://terralang.org/ where these guys mix Lua and their 
compiled language, to achieve what I was thinking about in the same 
line:

"In this use-case, Lua serves as a powerful meta-programming language. 
You can think of it as a replacement for C++ template metaprogramming3 
or C preprocessor X-Macros4 with better syntax and nicer properties 
such as hygiene5."

Maybe this better explains, where I think it makes sense to seperate 
the two levels: language for the buidling-step, and language for the 
actual solution.

-- 
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20160208/46da9b6c/attachment-0001.html>