IRust VS AECforWebAssembly

irust?

Something I've been thinking a lot about for Rust is what can and should a REPL experience be for a compiled language (ie what are reasonable compromises).

There seem to be two repls that haven't gotten much traction:

- https://github.com/google/evcxr/blob/main/evcxr_repl/README....

- https://github.com/sigmaSd/IRust

There have been little and big nits that have held me back from wanting to push these further, including

- Bad defaults (having to opt-in to panic handling)

- Command syntax feeling out of place and likely not beginner friendly

- Limits on variable preservation

- Lack of introspection (at least irust as `:type`)

So far I've been punting on wanting to improve this area by instead focusing on polishing up a rust script solution in the hopes of getting it merged: https://github.com/epage/cargo-script-mvs

Great! I have not yet made source maps for my programming language that compiles to WebAssembly, and I probably never will.

Up until today, my AEC-to-WebAssembly was, if somebody tried to use two structures of different types as the second and the third operand to the ?: (ternary conditional) operator, as in this example: ``` Structure First Consists Of Nothing; EndStructure

Well, I have written the first compiler for my programming language, targetting x86, in IE6-compatible JavaScript, and the second compiler, targetting WebAssembly, has been written in C++11. I think that, to choose a language to write a compiler in, you need to look at at least two things:

You can see the releases v2.5.3 and v2.5.2 of AECforWebAssembly on GitHub. They are produced with the same version of GCC, the only difference (as far as I know) is that v2.5.2 was produced directly on Debian, whereas v2.5.3 was cross-compiled from Windows to Linux using Docker.

That could be true. I host my AEC-to-WebAssembly compiler on GitHub, GitLab and SourceForge, and it's only on GitHub that it has 21 stars and 2 forks. On GitLab and SourceForge, it has zero of both.

Well, the main compiler for my programming language is targetting the JavaScript Virtual Machine by outputting WebAssembly. I think it's even better than targetting Java Virtual Machine, because, for one thing, your executables can run in any modern browser if you output WebAssembly. If you target Java Virtual Machine, the users need to actually download your app. Furthermore, there is an official assembler for WebAssembly called WebAssembly Binary Toolkit (WABT), so your compiler can output assembly and not have to deal with binary files. There is nothing equivalent to that for Java Virtual Machine.