[LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends

[Nate Fries]

On 6/3/2011 8:06 PM, Samuel Crow wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Nate Fries<nfries88 at yahoo.com>
>> To: Samuel Crow<samuraileumas at yahoo.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List<llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 6:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends
>>
>> Most JVMs perform terribly. Even Sun's has had notable performance issues in
>> my experience.
>> .NET is an excellent case, but then that's only available on Microsoft
>> systems and from numerous benchmarks I've found, Mono is a weak substitute.
>> If you're suggesting that we go the other way around (build native code from
>> a high-level language, as opposed to using native code initially) then
>> that's a terrible idea for myself personally. I lack familiarity with
>> CLR-based languages and absolutely detest some things about Java; I would rather
>> stick with good ol' C++. I prefer strongly-typed languages, so ECMAScript
>> and most other standardized high-level languages are less than desirable for me.
>>
>> I would much prefer my original suggestion, which is very simple as well and
>> would require even less code than the conversions you're suggesting (and the
>> only additional dependency being an archiving library).
>>
> I'm not terribly fond of .NET or Java either.  When I was thinking of a friendlier language, I was thinking more along the lines of http://code.google.com/p/tart/ which is already an LLVM language and designed to take advantage of all of LLVM's features internally, such as using opaque types to implement templates and eliminating the preprocessor altogether.
I read the "taste of tart" part of the wiki and didn't care for it, 
personally.