llvm-cbe VS Fennel

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.

It's interesting: minimal software is out there, but folks don't tend to choose it. I spend a fair amount of time thinking about how to be conservative in my dependencies, and this encourages a lightweight stack that tends to perform pretty well. These days, I'm favoring tools like Lua, SQLite, Fennel[0], Althttpd[1], Fossil[2], and the Mako Server[3] and find that great, lightweight, stable, efficient software is to be had, for free, but you have to go a bit off the beaten path. This isn't stuff you hear about on Stack Overflow.

In terms of frontend, which the post focuses on (Google Docs and a 30MB doc), I guess I'm conflicted. While I tend to favor native apps + web pages, I'm also a daily Tiddlywiki user, and I really think web apps have their place (heck, one idea I'm working on is a lightweight local server that lets you run web apps like Tiddlywiki). But without a doubt, Tiddlywiki is more resource intensive than Emacs (my go-to for notetaking when I'm not on TW). My tab for a 6MB Tiddlywiki file uses 155MB of RAM, and my (heavily customized, dozens of open buffers) Emacs session uses 88MB. So I do think the author has a good point.

[0]: https://fennel-lang.org/

Eh it's not just luajit and luajit didn't create that problem either. It's a symptom of lua actually succeeding at its design goal of being easily embedded as an extension language. A significant number of incompatible runtimes are more popular than the most recent puc lua, including I believe the older official lua 5.2 released in 2011.

I've done a fair bit of professional lua development and I don't think I've ever written standalone up-to-date puc lua except maybe for some tooling & scripts. It's such a small language and used in such a way that the runtime, distribution method, and available APIs have much more impact on your use (and compatibility) than the version.

Virtually everyone shipping a lua environment is also shipping changes to it that make it a unique target, if only extensions to the standard library. This is why I think syntax layer-only approach like fennel's is the correct choice for improving on lua. It mirrors lua's runtime semantics exactly, and allows you to access the implementation peculiars on their own terms and so can just be run on time of any lua system.

https://fennel-lang.org

Just learned about https://fennel-lang.org/ , could have probably used that as well to avoid Lua.

> I’m positive that there is a Lispy language out there (actually in existence, or the aether) that is appropriate for embedded work, but the constraints of the target make it difficult to envision.

Perhaps Fennel* fits the bill?

* https://fennel-lang.org/

I've also seen neovim plugins written in fennel [0], so if you want something lispy, that's possible now.

[0]: a Lisp that compiles to Lua, https://github.com/bakpakin/Fennel

Something similar: Fennel (https://fennel-lang.org/) is a lisp that compiles into Lua, which nvim can use as plugins, so you can write nvim plugins in a lisp. Aniseed (https://github.com/Olical/aniseed) makes this really easy.

If you want a more FP language on the Lua runtime, you might be interested in Fennel. I wrote a post about adding Fennel compiler to a hslua interpreter a while back, which might be useful for you.