Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

File for divorce from LLVM

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 167 posts

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#21

Post by qup »

Kamq wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Since you're already not even close to on-topic, I just want to say that people on the internet commenting about "how they misread the title" are some of the worst kind of comments.

Titles could mean all kinds of various, new things if you substituted meaningful words for other meaningful words. Or in this case, acronyms hiding several words at a time.

The final result of your comment is that apparently you're critiquing LLMs in a thread that has literally nothing to do with them, and seemingly trying to talk about them instead.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#22

Post by harerazer »

frmdstryr wrote: post #16

So I spent ~4 years writing all my embedded projects (and libraries) in Zig and now several "tier 1" supported arches are just going to be dropped? It's your language so do whatever you want but please adjust the branding accordingly...

I mean, it’s no secret that zig is pre 1.0. I’m not sure this is on them, although it does seem like a drastic proposal.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#23

Post by cobbzilla »

runevault wrote: post #6

With the amount Zig promoted being able to use it to compile c (and maybe c++ I forget) only to decide no LLVM at all seems wild. Without a LOT more people chipping in to support the odds of even coming close to the platform support of LLVM seems incredibly unlikely as well. I would understand planning to add another backend of their own for those who want that, but just getting rid of LLVM seems... rash?

It’ll still output LLVM bitcode, but it won’t depend on LLVM libs anymore

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/13265

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#24

Post by MuffinFlavored »

frmdstryr wrote: post #16

So I spent ~4 years writing all my embedded projects (and libraries) in Zig and now several "tier 1" supported arches are just going to be dropped? It's your language so do whatever you want but please adjust the branding accordingly...

They're dropping LLVM by re-implementing everything it does in their own homegrown fashion?...

To what benefit? Isn't this a waste of resources?

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#25

Post by WalterBright »

The DLang has 3 compilers:

1. gdc - based on the Gnu compiler collection back end

2. ldc - based on the LLVM back end

3. dmd - based on the x86 code generator that I wrote for Zortech/Symantec/Digital Mars

They each have their pluses, minuses, and targets. But the D language each supports is the same.

Overall, our users like the choice. Some even use more than one.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#27

Post by plorkyeran »

keyle wrote: post #5

Every time I hear about LLVM, it turns into a rant. Clearly there is a problem there that needs to be fixed. Maybe the LLVM project team should address those issues.

It's not obvious that "LLVM, but not incredibly frustrating" is a thing which can exist. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible that in a few decades the widespread view will be that the very concept of LLVM was a mistake, and a universal compiler backend is just a trap which makes it easy to bootstrap a language but inevitably causes massive problems down the road.

LLVM does have plenty of incidental problems which are clearly fixable and just need a lot of work, but even if you fixed all of them you'd still have people who use LLVM ranting about it.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#29

Post by brucethemoose2 »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #24
frmdstryr wrote: post #16

So I spent ~4 years writing all my embedded projects (and libraries) in Zig and now several "tier 1" supported arches are just going to be dropped? It's your language so do whatever you want but please adjust the branding accordingly...

They're dropping LLVM by re-implementing everything it does in their own homegrown fashion?... To what benefit? Isn't this a waste of resources?

The reasoning seems to be the flood of LLVM bugs, but I don't think reinventing such a large wheel will be any easier.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#30

Post by wpietri »

qup wrote: post #21
Kamq wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Since you're already not even close to on-topic, I just want to say that people on the internet commenting about "how they misread the title" are some of the worst kind of comments. Titles could mean all kinds of various, new things if you substituted meaningful words for other meaningful words. Or in this case, acronyms hiding several words at a time. The final result of your comment is that apparently you're critiq…

I thought it was funny. They had an experience that amused them and they shared it. Not everything has to be to your personal tastes.

If you think that's one of the worst kind of internet comments, you might want to recalibrate a bit. I have a variety of things from my anti-abuse work that I'd be happy to send you.

Post reply on HN