I understand, but I don't think you understand me. asmjit is great if you're writing a fast JIT and want to write C++, or can tolerate a C++ requirement. If yo

I understand, but I don't think you understand me. asmjit is great if you're writing a fast JIT and want to write C++, or can tolerate a C++ requirement. If you're writing a compiler in any other language, requiring C++ is a burden that may be insurmountable. What I'm lamenting is the lack of a widely used, decent C library for generating x86 and ARM code, which doesn't seem to exist, nor does asmjit fill that gap. > I think that asmjit's biggest strength is in its completeness and performance, so it can be used to generate code in a sub-millisecond time, which higher level code generators such as LLVM don't offer. Not everyone cares about sub-millsecond performance for code generation. It's easier to generate GCC syntax ASM and shell out to `asm` or `cc` than to write bindings to asmjit and interface from a different language, and the performance is fine because lowering your AST into an IR that can be used to generate asm either as text or the input to asmjit is a much bigger bottleneck.