On 10/30/2016 07:53 AM, Walter Bright wrote: > On 10/29/2016 10:30 PM, Dicebot wrote: >> At the same time intended wasm spec >> (https://github.com/WebAssembly/design) is >> much more simple than machine code for something like x86_64. If >> Walter gets >> interested, that may be a feasible path :) > > I looked at it for 5 minutes :-) and it looks like typical intermediate > code that a compiler might generate. It wouldn't be hard to translate > the intermediate code generated for the dmd back end to wasm. What I > didn't see was any mention symbolic debug information, linking, or how > to connect to system services like mutexes, I/O, etc. Time risks would > also be wasm is an incomplete, moving target.
Well, "risk" and "opportunity" are pretty much synonymous in such context :) Whoever comes first with easy to use toolchain for new platform gets all the hype - it pretty much boils down to making decision if one believes new platform is likely to succeed. For now I am just keeping my track on relevant information to see where does it all go. > Looks like a fun project, but I don't see how I could split off time to > work on it. No argument here, it would be premature to pay much attention to it anyway. I will probably remind you of this topic some time next year with more information available so that more weighted judgment can be made.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
