You could run C that way... but scScript is a scripting language using C-like syntax with features designed for scripting. For example, it provides dual variadic parameter/arg lists. Turns out having "in" (pass-by-val) and "out" (pass-by-ref) parameters are more pleasant (at least to me) than trying to return N values out of a function (especially since script languages run away from pointers). Perhaps it is a testament to my ignorance, but I am not aware of another language that does this.
The difficulty in designing a language is not so much implementing a compiler, but the iterative process of implementing and fine-tuning a given aesthetic... a given flavor as it were and it has to work well. Of course the other side is testing the damn thing... so my hats off to QA!
Nevertheless, I am sure good tool users could save a lot of time instead of hand implementing everything, as I would. So thumbs up to LLVM.
So you want to generate C code instead of ByteCodes.... and then compile the C? I suppose, if you broke out the runtime memory management (and a few other things) into a library. But I am not sure why you would....
If you want pure speed, then you would rather have it generate machine instructions instead of higher-level ByteCode ops. But you would not be using a scripting language if you want pure speed.
Perhaps if you only want a double-arglist variant of C (you must call it scC!) then you could write a front end processor! And by you, I mean not me :-)
The dual in/out parameter idea is interesting. Looking forward to trying it.
I wanted to write a love note to C... and if you hate it, it is all my fault.
It looks interesting.
Isn't the same kind of thing available from LLVM?
You could run C that way... but scScript is a scripting language using C-like syntax with features designed for scripting. For example, it provides dual variadic parameter/arg lists. Turns out having "in" (pass-by-val) and "out" (pass-by-ref) parameters are more pleasant (at least to me) than trying to return N values out of a function (especially since script languages run away from pointers). Perhaps it is a testament to my ignorance, but I am not aware of another language that does this.
The difficulty in designing a language is not so much implementing a compiler, but the iterative process of implementing and fine-tuning a given aesthetic... a given flavor as it were and it has to work well. Of course the other side is testing the damn thing... so my hats off to QA!
Nevertheless, I am sure good tool users could save a lot of time instead of hand implementing everything, as I would. So thumbs up to LLVM.
i haven't looked at the code yet but i love the website. just how open source project websites should be! ♥
May Odin smile upon you :-) And thanks for not laughing at my art!!
Can this trans-compile to C? (And vice versa?)
So you want to generate C code instead of ByteCodes.... and then compile the C? I suppose, if you broke out the runtime memory management (and a few other things) into a library. But I am not sure why you would....
If you want pure speed, then you would rather have it generate machine instructions instead of higher-level ByteCode ops. But you would not be using a scripting language if you want pure speed.
Perhaps if you only want a double-arglist variant of C (you must call it scC!) then you could write a front end processor! And by you, I mean not me :-)