bug VS AECforWebAssembly

For example, there's a bunch like bug, where the issues just get stored as plaintext files in your repo. This makes intuitive sense -- it's like storing your docs as Markdown files in your repo. You can use all the same tools to branch and merge and such, and you can include some code that fixes an issue, mark the issue as fixed, and update the docs all in the same commit, without needing any special tooling to synchronize those things. If you want to find out which branches (or releases, etc) have the fix, you can just look at the state of the bug inside those branches.

https://github.com/driusan/bug is a similar system written in Go. The goal is to use the filesystem in a human readable way, similar to how an organized person without any bug tracking software might, by keeping track of bugs in an issues/ directory, one (descriptive) subdirectory per issue.

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.