You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given that LLJS is nearly C, would be great to have C as a potential compile target (using stdlib & malloc instead of ArrayBuffer). Or even Objective C.
Having one language to target the web as well as native would just be plain awesome. Plus, adding language features such as Classes, forEach loops etc (ES6?) would be a lot easier with LLJS. There's no reason it needs to be as plain as C.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
That's not quite how I saw it but sure. At first glance it seemed to me that LLJS is effectively a C-like language that can be compiled to javascript, not a superset of javascript. I see no advantages of using dynamic types when writing LLJS. If dynamic typing isn't supported, then it shouldn't be hard to transform LLJS into C. You could support hashes with a simple hash data structure in C, but ideally you'd implement ES6 Map, Array etc in LLJS itself.
Imagine the examples on your homepage being converted to C and compiled to native, very do-able right?
Given that LLJS is nearly C, would be great to have C as a potential compile target (using stdlib & malloc instead of ArrayBuffer). Or even Objective C.
Having one language to target the web as well as native would just be plain awesome. Plus, adding language features such as Classes, forEach loops etc (ES6?) would be a lot easier with LLJS. There's no reason it needs to be as plain as C.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: