interface99 VS llvm-cbe

There is a project that achieves something like this, and quite nicely I think, worth checking it https://github.com/Hirrolot/interface99

I agree; I would especially not recommend abusing macros throughout an application codebase too much. Conceptually, Metalang99 is more of a (sub)language than a library, which also adds some entry barrier. Ideally, I see the application of Metalang99 being used "behind the scenes", e.g., encapsulated in separate code files/libraries such as Datatype99 and Interface99. This is what I (mostly) do in SmolRTSP.

There are also some differences. Golang, for example, can resolve interface methods at run-time, whereas Interface99 constructs virtual tables statically. Interface99 allows default implementations; Golang doesn't. And, of course, Interface99 mandates placing impl(MyIface, MyType), whereas Golang uses a.k.a. duck typing for interfaces (interface implementations are indistinguishable from ordinary methods). Also, when you would use embedding in Golang, such as this:

I think your github repo link is broken. Here's a working link.

I've done something similar with Datatype99 and Interface99. They are like a macro eDSL that compiles to C. The first one features algebraic data types, the second one features interfaces.

If you need a bit more high-level constructions, you can use the Datatype99 and Interface99 libraries. The former provides polymorphism over data, the latter -- over behaviour (I am the creator of these libraries).

Is it possible that you could benefit from "a better C"? If so, I'd love to hear your take on Crystal, and the recent announce on Interface99.

There is a full example code: https://github.com/Hirrolot/interface99/blob/master/examples/state.c.

So how does the LLVM C backend work then?

https://github.com/JuliaHubOSS/llvm-cbe

One alternative worth mentioning, though, would be the LLVM C Backend maintained by the Julia community.

If you drop "easily" and "human" (/s) from your requirements list, then the C backend for LLVM might work. Then you can choose any programming language you want that has LLVM 10-compatible frontend.

If you really must have something that compiles in C (e.g. for a platform where you only have a C compiler) there's an LLVM backend that outputs C code: https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe

You can convert llvm bitcode to C and then use C compiler, there is such project https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe .

I'm really surprised that the LLVM C backends have continually been resurrected then abandoned over the years. It's a good solution to this sort of thing and would enable a lot of cool stuff like Rust to weird embedded platforms. The most recent one is the Julia backend: https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe

Check this project out: https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe.

Well IMO it can definitely be rewritten in Julia, and to an easier degree than python since Julia allows hooking into the compiler pipeline at many areas of the stack. It's lispy an built from the ground up for codegen, with libraries like (https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/Metatheory.jl) that provide high level pattern matching with e-graphs. The question is whether it's worth your time to learn Julia to do so.

You could also do it at the LLVM level: https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe

For interesting takes on that, you can see https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl which relies on loopvectorization.jl to do transforms on Julia AST beyond what LLVM does. Because of that, Octavian.jl beats openblas on many linalg benchmarks

You can try your luck with the "resurrected" C backend: https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe

I don't understand why I see so many requests for LLVM-based languages to change around their backend or IR, that seems to be a huge amount of work for comparatively little benefit. The correct thing to do there is to just add support for those to LLVM.