On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 12/19/2012 1:33 AM, Walter Bright пишет:
>> On 12/18/2012 11:58 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> The same bytecode then could be be used for external representation.
>>
>> Sigh, there is (again) no point to an external bytecode.
>
> BTW In the end I think I was convinced that bytecode won't buy D much. Esp considering the cost of maintaining a separate spec for it and making sure both are in sync.

This argument is bogus. One of the goals of bytecode formats is to provide a common representation for many languages. That is one of the state goals for MS' CIL and LLVM. So while it's definitely true that maintaining and *additional* format and spec adds considerable costs, but more importantly this is incorrect when *reusing already existing* such formats, not to mention the benefits of interoperability with other supported languages and platforms.
Consider, calling Java libraries from JRuby, using C# code in F# projects, etc.

Say I want to use both Haskel and D in the same project, How would I do it? Using LLVM I should be able to - both GHC and LDC are based on LLVM.