4 ms·
Go, V etc. all have straightforward compiler systems that produce reasonably fast code without calling into LLVM. The fact that a lot of modern day compilers do
by sansnomme 7y ago
Go, V etc. all have straightforward compiler systems that produce reasonably fast code without calling into LLVM. The fact that a lot of modern day compilers don't have a built-in assemblers etc. are probably more due to laziness.
- dorfsmay 7y agoLaziness? Or time constraints and specialization? I see the last stage of compiling as a special skills which requires a lot of time, especially if you want to support multiple platforms. If you're thing is to create a great programming language, then your time is better spent on that rather than create a bad or ok backend supporting very few platforms.
- mojuba 7y agoProbably more to do with cross-CPU portability than laziness
- rickbutton 7y agoNo one that maintains a production grade compiler is lazy. I would say that no one that maintains a compiler of any quality is lazy. Let's replace "laziness" with "carefully considered trade-offs" in this context. i.e. "The fact that a lot of modern day compilers don't have built in assemblers etc. are probably more due to carefully considered trade-offs".