On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Aleksi Nurmi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > To the point: I think CLI is an important target, but I do believe > > that the native (or LLVM, C-- or C) backend should have the priority. > I tend to agree. Here's why I'm looking at CLI anyway: > • I really want to get something up, running, and debuggable as quickly > as possible. Having a bootstrap environment quickly is more important that > targeting the right eventual environment. Even if BitC ultimately targets > bare metal, being able to run the compiler within an established IDE is a > Good Thing (TM). There is no benefit here to doing everything ourselves. >
Is this a change of focus for BitC? I always thought that bare-metal was the target - an alternative to C for systems programming. I'm less interested in virtual machines although I have been impressed with recent progress in that area. Having said that I'm glad to see everyone's still interested in bringing the project forward. I like everything I've seen but haven't had time to play with the current implementation. -ipc _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
