4 ms·
That just seems like poor discipline. But not like creating a typesetting system to use to write your book. It seems like it is shaping up to a pretty nice la
by ncmncm 5y ago
That just seems like poor discipline.
But not like creating a typesetting system to use to write your book.
It seems like it is shaping up to a pretty nice language. But writing the compiler in itself is very 20th-century. Just add a parser to LLVM or Gcc and call it good.
But don't make the mistake C, C++, and Rust did, using a prefix dereference operator. Pascal got that one right.
BTW: "get" in a pure function name is code smell. More generally, transitive verbs in pure function names are code smell.
- slewis 5y agoThis comment is a roller-coaster and I love it.
- miloignis 5y agoBased on the "Compiler Overview" page, they do use LLVM for codegen: https://github.com/ValeLang/Vale/blob/master/compiler-overview.md https://github.com/ValeLang/Vale/blob/master/compiler-overvi...
- stevage 5y agoThe difference is the original goal of writing a game was frivolous anyway, so it doesn't matter if it gets done. Whereas if you have a book contract, writing LaTeX instead is a bit irresponsible.
- lifthrasiir 5y ago> [D]on't make the mistake C, C++, and Rust did, using a prefix dereference operator. This is only a mistake when the deference is frequently followed by postfix operators, in most cases field and method accesses. Unlike C or C++, Rust does auto-dereference that essentially eliminates such situations and thus a prefix operator doesn't do much harm.
- ncmncm 5y agoC and C++ also have a postfix field access operator. People still have to write "(*p)->m". Being obliged to write "(*p).m" is no better.
- quickthrower2 5y agoWriting the compiler is YACC shaving.