proposal-operator-overloading VS sokol-odin

There's a not-very-active proposal to add operator overloading to JS which takes a similar scoped approach:

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-operator-overloading

There's a proposal to add operator overloading to the language, but AFAIK it never landed.

An example of it would be the operator overloading proposal https://github.com/tc39/proposal-operator-overloading that would allow overriding === and it would also solve in one shot many other problems (like numeric types extension, pipeable operator, and all the ones listed in the proposal).

Kind of but not really. There is the concept of operator overloading that would let you specify how to handler uses of operators like - and + with your class instances, but this is not yet officially supported in JavaScript. There is an operator overloading proposal to maybe add it in the future (and if you're using QuickJS that has support built in), but right now there's not a whole lot you can do.

Though this is not possible now since operators always work on primitive values, there is a proposal for operator overloading that could potentially allow us to use operators on objects in the future. It's still very early, so its not something you can use today (or anytime soon, if ever at all). In the meantime, you'll need to use method calls to perform these kinds of operations.

I'm not sure who hates it, but I have seen it abused (which people don't like). But, quickjs has it now, and there's a proposal to have it added to the JS spec. The proposal is only stage 1, so who knows what will happen with it or when, but its not counted out.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-operator-overloading

There are still a couple issues that have to be solved. m2c: I hope that won't get to stage 3, though I like operator overloading in general, I think it's something that will complicate JS even more.

* etc

There is also the second issue that C is technically TWO languages: the C programming language and the C preprocessor. People mix the two together and things cannot be easily translated. A good basic example of this is people using `#define` for constants, and thus that name has no semantic meaning in the language itself. A translator has to try and make some semantic meaning from the intersection of these two languages, even if people don't make a distinction when making APIs.

And Odin's `foreign` system allows [1] for a lot of really nice things that most other languages cannot do so tersely. Here are two examples of demonstrating bindings of C libraries that feel as if they were native Odin libraries WITHOUT any wrappers:

* https://github.com/floooh/sokol-odin/blob/main/sokol/gfx/gfx... (and the rest)

I maintain auto-generated bindings for my C libraries for Zig and Nim (and Odin and Rust - although the Rust bindings definitely need some love to make them a lot more idiomatic).

I think looking at the examples (which is essentially the same code in different languages) gives you a high level idea, but they only scratch the surface when it comes to language features (things like the Zig code not using comptime features):

Zig: https://github.com/floooh/sokol-zig/tree/master/src/examples

Nim: https://github.com/floooh/sokol-nim/tree/master/examples

Odin: https://github.com/floooh/sokol-odin/tree/main/examples

Rust: https://github.com/floooh/sokol-rust/tree/main/examples

I'm actually dabbling with Odin a bit in the scope of language bindings for the sokol headers:

https://github.com/floooh/sokol-odin

It's a very enjoyable language!

I recently wrote a bindings generator to Odin for my C libraries, and the FFI is very well thought out, down to defining things like linker dependencies in the code. For instance see here:

https://github.com/floooh/sokol-odin/blob/main/sokol/gfx/gfx...

The only minor downside (compared to Zig) is that Odin still requires a separate C/C++ toolchain to actually build the C dependencies. But I guess that's a typical 1st-world-problem ;)

(but AFAIK Odins FFI system isn't in any way related or depending on LLVM).