claro-lang VS AECforWebAssembly

Interesting, although it seems to currently be missing a license. While Bazel and I are for sure not friends, I found this funny https://github.com/JasonSteving99/claro-lang/blob/v0.1.495/W... I guess it's similar to having a maven build under Nix but my relationship to Bazel is why I got a chuckle out of the russian doll setup

Oh wow, it looks like we've stumbled upon the same construct! In my language, Claro, what you call "interfaces" are called "contracts". I've found it to be a very powerful abstraction!

In fact, you've actually been a huge source of inspiration for building keyword-generics into the programming language I've been working on in private for the past 2 years! The language is called "Claro" and if you're interested, please take a look at the blocking-generics syntax that your initiative has inspired.

I've tried to do something unique in my lang, Claro. To avoid spamming my same comment again, check out my answer to a very similar thread yesterday

Didn't see the Github link (but having all the info here is certainly appreciated)

Hmm, so I still feel that C3's imports actually are binding to a specific implementation like other imports (Java/C/python/etc). I think a language would need to embed dependency injection concepts deep into its veins to avoid this. You'd need a way for implementation files to specify that they depend on something with a certain name and a certain interface but not to name the specific implementation. Then a separate parallel module system (more like a Guice (dep injection framework) module than the modules in C3) would indicate the specific implementation that happens to be desired this run of the program. This is the inherent modularity that I'm looking to implement in Claro. There's some prototyping of this idea in the example programs at https://github.com/JasonSteving99/claro-lang/blob/main/src/java/com/claro/claro_programs/modules.claro

In Claro I'm trying the following distinct types of procedures:

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.