On 2016-01-31 13:59:06 +0000, Robert M. Münch said:

I like CTFE and the meta programming idea for languages like D.

However, I'm wondering why most (everyone?) is trying to do meta-programming using the same language as the one getting compiled. IMO the use-cases a pretty different and doing CTFE, code-generation etc. needs some other approach. If you look at all the strange template syntax, strange hacks etc. it's all far from being obvious.

Why not have a CTL (compile-time-language) that has access to some compiler internals, that follows a more functional concept? We are evaluating sequences of things to generate code, include / exclude code etc.

From my experience with the different approaches, functional thinking is much better suited and simpler to use for CTFE goals.

IMO that would really be a big step ahead. Because you know a hammer, not everything is a nail...

Here is a link http://terralang.org/ where these guys mix Lua and their compiled language, to achieve what I was thinking about in the same line:

"In this use-case, Lua serves as a powerful meta-programming language. You can think of it as a replacement for C++ template metaprogramming³ or C preprocessor X-Macros⁴ with better syntax and nicer properties such as hygiene⁵."

Maybe this better explains, where I think it makes sense to seperate the two levels: language for the buidling-step, and language for the actual solution.

-- 

Robert M. Münch

http://www.saphirion.com

smarter | better | faster