On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:27:38 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On Sep 15, 2013 7:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" < SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe, but as I recall, it was actually the low-level LLVM bytecode that gets translated to C, not the higher-level constructs.
> >
> > Related:
> > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/ABA/20130331#p1
> >
> > Although I guess that's using "LLVM IR -> JS", not "LLVM IR -> C". But I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before...
> >
> 
> Doesn't give the output of the final result, which is disappointing.
> 
> Also, translation to English is poor, but I think the blog also says that translating D classes don't work, which is what I'd expect in D -> C translation too.
> 

Hmm, yea, without actually knowing what I'm talking about, I'd bet it's probably using "Bare D" (or is it "Naked D"?), ie without druntime or phobos.

Which would make sense: If "compile to C" is treated as an architecture, then the platform-specific sections of druntime/phobos probably don't have version sections to handle the C "architecture".

And I'm sure druntime is needed for classes to work. I know that was
the case several years ago when I tried to get D (pre-D1, IIRC) going on
GBA and only got a minimal subset:
http://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/d-on-gba-nds-progress-thanks-to-oopman

On 2013-09-15 12:20, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> And I'm sure druntime is needed for classes to work. I know that was
> the case several years ago when I tried to get D (pre-D1, IIRC) going on
> GBA and only got a minimal subset:
> http://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/d-on-gba-nds-progress-thanks-to-oopman

Yes, the "new" keyword is translated to a call to "_d_newclass".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Am 15.09.2013 08:54, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> But I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before...
>

I'm pretty sure that IR -> C just outputs C code that feeds LLVM with the original IR and not an equivalent of the IR itself. So it's usually no more useful than directly compiling to machine code for the target architecture.

On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 11:39:28 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 15.09.2013 08:54, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> But I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before...
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure that IR -> C just outputs C code that feeds LLVM with the original IR and not an equivalent of the IR itself. So it's usually no more useful than directly compiling to machine code for the target architecture.

That's the C++ backend you are talking about.

The C backend - which was defunct some time ago, no idea about its current state - actually generated a C code equivalent of the IR (with some limitations).

David

On 9/13/13 7:51 PM, Justin Whear wrote:
> Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
> A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of vim).
> The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
> comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison, suggesting
> that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on "It has to run on
> most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is out."
>
> Note: I'm fine with D not running absolutely everywhere, I only write it
> on linux for linux.
>

I DON'T KNOW why, but I find it SOMEHOW hard or annoying TO READ...

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:39:23 +0200
Sönke Ludwig <sludwig@outerproduct.org> wrote:

> Am 15.09.2013 08:54, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> > But I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before...
> >
> 
> I'm pretty sure that IR -> C just outputs C code that feeds LLVM with the original IR and not an equivalent of the IR itself. So it's usually no more useful than directly compiling to machine code for the target architecture.

Unless the desired target architecture isn't supported.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:03:04 -0300
Ary Borenszweig <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:

> On 9/13/13 7:51 PM, Justin Whear wrote:
> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
> > comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on
> > "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is
> > out."
> >
> > Note: I'm fine with D not running absolutely everywhere, I only write it on linux for linux.
> >
> 
> I DON'T KNOW why, but I find it SOMEHOW hard or annoying TO READ...

Funny Id noticed THE same thing too } Which IS strange lack OF punctuation normally makes things easier TO read doesnt it }

But I imagine you'd probably get used to those things pretty quicky, though. It's just syntax, after all. But holding SHIFT all the time may be harder to get used to. I've done plenty of all-caps keywords back in my BASIC days, and I can't say I miss it - or that I find it in any way easier to read.

I don't like the idea of language-enforced style. I do understand the rationale, but to me it's just minutia that has no business being nanny-supervised.

Zimbu's actually been around for quite some time now. I first came
across it several years ago when trying to find a modern native systems
language that wasn't C/C++. I moved on in favor of D because Zumba
seemed to be in much more of an early experimental state. Looks
like it's further along now, but not as much as I would have guessed.
Maybe all the attention on D/Rust/Go already sucked up most potential
contributors?

On 15 September 2013 21:12, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:03:04 -0300
> Ary Borenszweig <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/13 7:51 PM, Justin Whear wrote:
>> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
>> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
>> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
>> > comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
>> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on
>> > "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is
>> > out."
>> >
>> > Note: I'm fine with D not running absolutely everywhere, I only write it on linux for linux.
>> >
>>
>> I DON'T KNOW why, but I find it SOMEHOW hard or annoying TO READ...
>
> Funny Id noticed THE same thing too } Which IS strange lack OF punctuation normally makes things easier TO read doesnt it }
>
> But I imagine you'd probably get used to those things pretty quicky, though. It's just syntax, after all. But holding SHIFT all the time may be harder to get used to. I've done plenty of all-caps keywords back in my BASIC days, and I can't say I miss it - or that I find it in any way easier to read.
>
> I don't like the idea of language-enforced style. I do understand the rationale, but to me it's just minutia that has no business being nanny-supervised.
>
> Zimbu's actually been around for quite some time now. I first came
> across it several years ago when trying to find a modern native systems
> language that wasn't C/C++. I moved on in favor of D because Zumba
> seemed to be in much more of an early experimental state. Looks
> like it's further along now, but not as much as I would have guessed.
> Maybe all the attention on D/Rust/Go already sucked up most potential
> contributors?
>

Well, ZImbu gets a -42 out of 10 for code readability and maintainability. :-)

https://code.google.com/p/zimbu/source/browse/zimbu2c.c


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

HELLO AND WELCOME... To Zimbucom.

Anything is possible at Zimbucom. The only limitation is yourself.

On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 21:26:50 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 15 September 2013 21:12, Nick Sabalausky
> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:03:04 -0300
>> Ary Borenszweig <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/13 7:51 PM, Justin Whear wrote:
>>> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
>>> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
>>> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
>>> > comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
>>> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on
>>> > "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is
>>> > out."
>>> >
>>> > Note: I'm fine with D not running absolutely everywhere, I only
>>> > write it on linux for linux.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I DON'T KNOW why, but I find it SOMEHOW hard or annoying TO READ...
>>
>> Funny Id noticed THE same thing too } Which IS strange lack OF
>> punctuation normally makes things easier TO read doesnt it }
>>
>> But I imagine you'd probably get used to those things pretty quicky,
>> though. It's just syntax, after all. But holding SHIFT all the time may
>> be harder to get used to. I've done plenty of all-caps keywords back in
>> my BASIC days, and I can't say I miss it - or that I find it in any way
>> easier to read.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of language-enforced style. I do understand the
>> rationale, but to me it's just minutia that has no business being
>> nanny-supervised.
>>
>> Zimbu's actually been around for quite some time now. I first came
>> across it several years ago when trying to find a modern native systems
>> language that wasn't C/C++. I moved on in favor of D because Zumba
>> seemed to be in much more of an early experimental state. Looks
>> like it's further along now, but not as much as I would have guessed.
>> Maybe all the attention on D/Rust/Go already sucked up most potential
>> contributors?
>>
>
> Well, ZImbu gets a -42 out of 10 for code readability and maintainability. :-)
>
> https://code.google.com/p/zimbu/source/browse/zimbu2c.c

looks like something f2c would spew out...and well, line 1, 2, & 3 explain it:

/*
 * Generated from Zimbu file zimbu2c.zu
 */


Vim sources are actually quite readable...considering it's old greybeard C:
https://vim.googlecode.com/hg/src/fold.c