On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 08:57:22PM +0700, Михаил Ивко wrote:
> > Look at rust, they are trying: they are writting a kernel. But face the
> > consequences: there are no syntax profiles... you get strings hardcoded in the
> > syntax, why not threading while they're at it... lol.
>
> The only part of rust srings that's "hardcoded" is that str is
> different from [u8], so that indexing operations can be implemented
> differently (to respect unicode character boundaries).
> Things such as allocating memory for concatenated strings are not hardcoded.
> This begs the question of why str is a primitive type, not a simple
> wrapper type. I don't know enough rust to answer that.
>
> > I wish you luck with
> > their SDK: they have a rust compiler written in rust, but the main SDK
> > (bootstrap), is just an insane bloat based on smelly c++ and... the infamous
> > and magnificiently "comfy" mozilla build system. Where is the suckless compiler
> > written in simple C with basic makefiles or idiotic but soooo ez to understand
> > simple sh scripts?
> >
>
> So, to build rust without rust compiler you have to deal with suck. To
> build C without C compiler... Can you even do that in this day and
> age?
Never really got intereted in this. Maybe there is a C compiler written in one
of the ML dialects (the ML guys did re-write many apps, but forgot a
performant kernel with enough drivers).
Nowdays, you have clang which requires a good c++ compiler/runtime in order to
compile C. gcc is now similar: you must have a c++98 compiler/runtime to
compile gcc (that's why I did start slowly a kind of modular fork of gcc:
currently in libiberty breaking down). gcc steering commity is now evil and/or
strongly sick (gcc still uses that svn junk, it's kind of a proof that
something is not "right" over there). Its kind of opacity and kind of under the
hood activities do not help: since it's one of the corner stone of open
source software like linux is, fishy, damn fishy.
--
Sylvain
Received on Thu Feb 02 2017 - 15:31:29 CET