penne VS AECforWebAssembly

There are basically two options: - the (Scopes)[http://scopes.rocks] reference logic - the (Penne)[https://github.com/SLiV9/penne] reference logic

I'm not sure if I first read that article before or after starting Penne (https://github.com/SLiV9/penne), but my main motiviation for the language was definitely a response to the ubiquitous "goto considered harmful" mentality, and wanting to see if goto could be redeemed. And for an alt-history language I think Penne makes use of goto pretty well.

Excellent suggestion. I've taken my small compiler project, where I don't usually run clippy, and tallied my findings:

My Penne compiler has a lexer that turns source code into tokens and a recursive descent parser that produces a list of "common AST" declarations.

Here's the source code if you're interested: https://github.com/SLiV9/penne/blob/main/src/parser.rs

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.