flpc VS ruby

> I've actually never considered putting the comment first! I'll have to think about that one.

I'm sure there are many competing constraints so definitely don't do it because I'm suggesting this on a whim. :) My reasoning is that as a human reader, the comment is the more readable part, so I'd want to see it first. And for a computer, it probably doesn't care if the op code appears first or not.

> You probably don't want to understand Haskell's loop fusion by comparing source and generated code.

Indeed. But even though C and Haskell are very different, I think they share a common philosophy about compilation where you can basically do whatever you want as long as it still produces the same result.

I vaguely remember looking at Python generate bytecode (with `dis.dis`) and seeing it wasn't too bad. I haven't tried it on a larger program though.

There's tcc (and more recently chibicc that I haven't had a chance to check out yet) that you're probably already aware of. Is the generated output still pretty bad.

I'll also throw my own attempt in the ring

- High level https://github.com/asrp/flpc/blob/master/lib/stage0.flpc

I have some embedded assembler libraries (usable from within a language, as opposed to the input being text) on my PL resources site. Some of the smaller ones like the tiny one we build during Compiling a Lisp strip some of the magic from assemblers. YJIT's assembler API is a bit messy but the implementation is clean enough.

The Cargo.toml file gives the answer: https://github.com/Shopify/ruby/blob/rust-yjit-upstreaming/y...

There is only a single, optional dependency which is apparently only used for testing.

Hi there! The repo linked in this post is our small set of benchmarks. For those interested in microjit I would link them to our little readme file: https://github.com/Shopify/ruby/blob/microjit/doc/ujit.md