On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
12/19/2012 1:33 AM, Walter Bright пишет:
On 12/18/2012 11:58 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
The same bytecode then could be be used for external
representation.
Sigh, there is (again) no point to an external bytecode.
BTW In the end I think I was convinced that bytecode won't buy
D much. Esp considering the cost of maintaining a separate spec
for it and making sure both are in sync.
This argument is bogus. One of the goals of bytecode formats is
to provide a common representation for many languages. That is
one of the state goals for MS' CIL and LLVM. So while it's
definitely true that maintaining and *additional* format and spec
adds considerable costs, but more importantly this is incorrect
when *reusing already existing* such formats, not to mention the
benefits of interoperability with other supported languages and
platforms.
Consider, calling Java libraries from JRuby, using C# code in F#
projects, etc.
Say I want to use both Haskel and D in the same project, How
would I do it? Using LLVM I should be able to - both GHC and LDC
are based on LLVM.
