it looks like it has a C based jit much like libtcc
but with a few more optimization passes
maybe not suitable, but maybe worth a look at least.
(I keep a list of code generators :)
can't afford that in some combination of things it generates buggy code or whatever
that tends to trim the options down
libtcc isn't fancy but it is rock solid
though right from the beginning, the idea was that Lobster's Higher Order Functions can do most things macros can do
if that makes sense
things like precompiling regex
not excluding it won't happen.. just going to wait until its really needed :)
there's already some compile-time eval.. i.e. the language guarantees compile-time if-thens, meaning you can have type errors in constant-false branches etc
I wouldn't mind extending that, as that is more elegant than macros to me
what do you work on?
you might be onto something, where the only way to get exactly what you want
yeah
haha
as it is with a lot of languages it seems
In the past I have used a lot of lisp languages, but the lack of static types really does get to me. I mostly agree that macros would almost always be better served by HOF. And I really agree that gc has some problems. For me the fact that the gc can't be triggered by something like dangling file handles really annoys me.
so if you forget to close a file descriptor its just gonna be cleaned up at some arbitrary poitn in the future
based on your allocation
did you find the lifetime analysis was complex to implement?
even though the latter is slightly more code