3 ms·
what's the practical benefit? if there's already a self-hosted Zig to binary compiler, why not delete the C++ code and call it a day? if suddenly some to bootst
by pas 4y ago
what's the practical benefit? if there's already a self-hosted Zig to binary compiler, why not delete the C++ code and call it a day? if suddenly some to bootstrap Zig checkout the old commit, and done.
I assume the Zig to WASM compiler and WASI were already a thing anyway, right? So instead of safekeeping the old commit now they can opt to keep this generated WASM code?
- Arnavion 4y agoRead the "Use a prior build of the compiler" section of the article.
- shp0ngle 4y agoYou still want people that have no Zig to be able to get Zig compiler that existed in a specific point in time. Instead of committing binaries in all the possible architectures to the repo, you commit just WASM. That is how I understand it.