asmjit VS circle

Some other instruction sets in some JSON: https://github.com/asmjit/asmjit/tree/master/db

The attentive reader may notice that this code is from a third-party library. So, we didn't want to include it in the article at first. However, we found something interesting. In 2017, somebody opened an issue in the asmjit project: the GCC 7.2 compiler issued a warning to the code above. The project authors fixed it:

You can use something like https://asmjit.com/ to generate and call x64 code at runtime.

But an easy to create a JIT would be to use https://github.com/asmjit/asmjit, which is used in RPCS3.

You could go the way of https://asmjit.com (or forth) and make it your assembler DSL on top of the low-level call.

But if you're willing to get closer to the hardware is https://github.com/bitfunnel/nativejit/ and https://asmjit.com/

https://github.com/asmjit/asmjit is nice. But using a JIT seems like a sledgehammer working around a lacking design.

Sean Baxter created a front end c++ compiler by himself, using llvm for the back end and the gcc or clang stl. I think it took him a couple of years. https://www.circle-lang.org/. Before this happened I heard a couple of different people claiming that there would never be a totally new compiler as it was too much work.

The real Typescript for C++ is Circle.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

Just like Typescript to JavaScript, the syntax is an evolution of what already exists, not a completely different syntax.

Sean Baxter's Circle [1] is arguably the spiritual successor to MOP.

[1] https://www.circle-lang.org/

Context: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Note that Circle is not an F/OSS compiler as someone pointed out before. This however doesn't make Circle less relevant, because it is actually a testament to show that C++ could have been much better without the claimed breakage. If Circle does provide a number of desirable features and its compiler can be built by a single person, then why shouldn't the committee do the same?

From all wannabe C++ replacements candidates, the only language that is really a TypeScript for C++, is Circle.

For whatever reason, Herb Sutter decided to ignore this language on the presentation.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

This is the only one with the syntax based on C++, incrementally changing the features via #pragma settings.

"Circle Fixes Defects, Makes C++ Language Safer & More Productive"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fxeNqSK2k

"Circle Evolves C++"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZDOGDMNLM

The second someone makes a successor language that seamlessly/directly interops with C++ _AND_ has the level of build/IDE tooling that C++/Rust have, I'm on board.

The closest thing right now is Sean Baxter's "Circle" compiler in "Carbon" mode IMO:

https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Unfortunately, Circle is closed-source and there's no LSP or other tooling to make the authoring experience nice.

I read through the whole of https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/README.md and man, I'm drooling. Awesome work, kudos.

Have a look at Circle from Sean Baxter [0]. It's pretty impressive.

[0]: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...