Comment by dagmx
2 years ago
While on one hand, I admire the fastidious desire to reduce dependencies, the trade offs seem pretty dire.
The loss of C++ compatibility effectively removes the biggest thing that my Zig fan friends mention to me.
The loss of performance (however temporary they say) is the other piece they mention.
Yeah it seems like most of the responses are against this proposal
For casual readers, it's a proposal, not something decided
Sure, but it's a proposal from Andrew Kelley, the language creator, and it's got a bunch of thought-out subitems that seem to have real progress being made. It seems more likely than not that this will come to pass, unless the community reaction really is heavily against.
I wouldn't assume that just because Andrew has written the proposal it will be accepted. There have been plenty of times where proposals from Andrew have been rejected and/or reworked.
The sub-items of this task are still valuable to complete even if this overarching proposal were declined. Most of them are not being completed as a prerequisite for this proposal. There are benefits gained even without the full removal of LLVM.
I can really respect the really wide-reaching views and goals of Andrew with zig and in proposals like this, even if I don't agree.
I mean, one of the checkboxes under LLVM is literally "optimization passes", so... I don't know how close they are to the end goal in terms of progress actually
1 reply →