4 ms·
Go's "pseudo-assembly" is not a plus. Everyone ends up learning both the architecture's assembly and the mapping to Go's pseudo-assembly which isn't actually po
by theparanoid 9y ago
Go's "pseudo-assembly" is not a plus. Everyone ends up learning both the architecture's assembly and the mapping to Go's pseudo-assembly which isn't actually portable because each architecture has architecture-specific features.
- yur83838 9y agoWould you say LLVM's pseudo assembly is also not a plus?
- codemac 9y agoThey should just call it Plan9 IR
- gameswithgo 9y agoPerhaps such a thing makes sense when you are a target for languages but not when you are just a language. Instead make sure anything that you can express with your IR can be expressed with the language?
- pjmlp 9y agoIt always makes sense. because it is easier to port to new platforms. A low level IR requires less effort to implement a compiler backend. In Go's case, it is what makes the reference compiler so easy to cross-compile.
- jernfrost 9y agoThat is like saying functions are not a plus, because you need to learn the functions and the mapping to the code used to implement the functions. The Go assembly language is no different from having macros, functions or anything else providing a higher level of abstraction to relieve the developer of thinking about every little nuance of the underlying language.
- nerdponx 9y agoIs this different on a conceptual level from bytecode or any other intermediate representation?