This video demonstrates the incredibly fast incremental compilation of the Zig self-hosted compiler. By making a small, seemingly insignificant change to a source file within the compiler's codebase and rebuilding, the video showcases a rebuild time of just around 25 milliseconds. This highlights Zig's efficient build system and its focus on fast iteration times, a key advantage for developer productivity.
The blog post argues that Carbon, while presented as a new language, is functionally more of a dialect or a sustained, large-scale fork of C++. It shares so much of C++'s syntax, semantics, and tooling that it blurs the line between a distinct language and a significantly evolved version of existing C++. This close relationship makes migration easier, but also raises questions about whether the benefits of a 'new' language outweigh the costs of maintaining another C++-like ecosystem, especially given ongoing modernization efforts within C++ itself. The author suggests that Carbon is less a revolution and more of a strategic response to the inertia surrounding large C++ codebases, offering a cleaner starting point while retaining substantial compatibility.
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the author's premise that Carbon, despite Google's marketing, isn't yet a fully realized language. Several point out the lack of a stable ABI and the dependence on constantly evolving C++ tooling as major roadblocks. Some highlight the ambiguity around its governance model, questioning whether it will truly be community-driven or remain under Google's control. The most compelling comments delve into the practical implications of this, expressing skepticism about adopting a language with such a precarious foundation and predicting a long road ahead before Carbon reaches production readiness for substantial projects. Others counter that this is expected for a young language and that Carbon's potential merits are worth the wait, citing its modern features and interoperability with C++. A few commenters express disappointment or frustration with the slow pace of Carbon's development, contrasting it with other language projects.
OpenLDK is a project that implements a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler written entirely in Common Lisp. It aims to be a high-performance JVM alternative, leveraging Lisp's metaprogramming capabilities for dynamic code generation and optimization. The project features a modular design, encompassing a bytecode interpreter, a tiered JIT compiler using a method-based compilation strategy, and a garbage collector. OpenLDK is considered experimental and under active development, focusing on performance enhancements and broader Java compatibility.
Commenters on Hacker News express interest in OpenLDK, primarily focusing on its unusual implementation of a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in Common Lisp. Several question the practical applications and performance implications of this approach, wondering about its speed and suitability for real-world projects. Some highlight the potential benefits of Lisp's dynamic nature for tasks like debugging and introspection. Others draw parallels to similar projects like Clojure and GraalVM, discussing their respective advantages and disadvantages. A few express skepticism about the long-term viability of the project, while others praise the technical achievement and express curiosity about its potential. The novelty of using Lisp for JVM implementation clearly sparks the most discussion.
The author details their process of creating a WebAssembly (Wasm) virtual machine (VM) written entirely in C. Driven by a desire for a lightweight, embeddable Wasm runtime for resource-constrained environments, they built the VM from scratch, implementing core features like the stack-based execution model, linear memory, and basic WebAssembly System Interface (WASI) support. The project focused on simplicity and understandability over performance, serving primarily as a learning exercise and a platform for experimentation with Wasm. The post walks through key aspects of the VM's design and implementation, including parsing the Wasm binary format, handling function calls, and managing memory. It also highlights the challenges faced and lessons learned during the development process.
Hacker News users generally praised the author's clear writing style and the educational value of the post. Several commenters discussed the project's performance, noting that it's not optimized for speed and suggesting potential improvements like just-in-time compilation. Some shared their own experiences with WASM interpreters and related projects, including comparisons to other implementations and alternative approaches like using a stack machine. Others appreciated the detailed explanation of the parsing and execution process, finding it helpful for understanding WASM internals. A few users pointed out minor corrections or areas for potential enhancement in the code, demonstrating active engagement with the technical details.
Apple is open-sourcing Swift Build, the build system used to create Swift itself and related projects. This move aims to improve build performance, enable more seamless integration with other build systems, and foster community involvement in its evolution. The open-sourcing effort will happen gradually, focusing initially on the build system's core components, including the build planning framework and the driver responsible for invoking build tools. Future plans include exploring alternative build executors and potentially supporting other languages beyond Swift. This change is expected to increase transparency, encourage broader adoption, and facilitate the development of new tools and integrations by the community.
HN commenters generally expressed cautious optimism about Apple open sourcing Swift Build. Some praised the potential for improved build times and cross-platform compatibility, particularly for non-Apple platforms. Several brought up concerns about how actively Apple will maintain the open-source project and whether it will truly benefit the wider community or primarily serve Apple's internal needs. Others questioned the long-term implications, wondering if this move signals Apple's eventual shift away from Xcode. A few commenters also discussed the technical details, comparing Swift Build to other build systems like Bazel and CMake, and speculating about potential integration challenges. Some highlighted the importance of community involvement for the project's success.
Svelte 5 focuses on becoming smaller, faster, and simpler. It achieves this through aggressive optimization strategies like compile-time dead code elimination and reduced reliance on runtime helpers, resulting in significantly smaller bundle sizes. This "vanishing framework" approach allows Svelte to prioritize performance and developer experience by shifting more work to the compiler. Rich Harris discusses the future of frameworks, emphasizing a trend towards this disappearing act, where frameworks become less noticeable at runtime. He also touches on the increasing importance of interoperability between frameworks and the potential for component-level adoption. Svelte 5's changes are not just about immediate improvements, but represent a commitment to a long-term vision for streamlined and performant web development.
Hacker News users discussed Svelte 5's new features, particularly the reactivity improvements and reduced bundle size. Some expressed excitement about the direction Svelte is taking, praising its developer experience and performance. Others questioned the long-term viability of compiled frameworks and debated the merits of Svelte's approach compared to React or other established frameworks. Several commenters also brought up the importance of interoperability and the potential challenges of adopting a newer framework. A few users mentioned their positive experiences migrating to Svelte and highlighted the speed of development and small application size. Some skepticism was expressed about the limited server-side rendering capabilities and the relatively small community compared to React.
This project aims to port the Amsterdam Compiler Kit (ACK) to the Cray X-MP supercomputer. The ACK, a retargetable compiler suite popular in the 1980s and early 1990s, is being adapted to generate code for the Cray's unique architecture, including its vector registers and specific instruction set. The current state of the project involves modifying the backend of the C compiler within ACK to target the Cray X-MP. This involves adjusting code generation, register allocation, and other compiler internals to accommodate the Cray's hardware. The project is a work in progress, with the goal of eventually producing a functional C compiler for the Cray X-MP using the ACK framework.
Hacker News users discuss the Amsterdam Compiler Kit (ACK) for the Cray X-MP, primarily focusing on its historical significance and the challenges of porting and maintaining software for such old hardware. Several commenters reminisce about using ACK and similar tools in the past, highlighting the intricacies of vectorization and optimization for Cray architectures. The discussion touches on the complexities of the Cray instruction set, the cleverness of ACK's code generation, and the difficulties in preserving historical software due to bit rot and lack of accessible hardware. Some express interest in exploring the code further, while others contemplate the effort required to get it running on modern systems or emulators. There's also mention of ACK's broader application beyond Cray systems, and its use in other academic and research contexts.
The blog post showcases an incredibly compact WebAssembly compiler written in just a single tweet's worth of JavaScript code. This compiler takes a simplified subset of C code as input and directly outputs the corresponding WebAssembly binary format. It leverages JavaScript's ability to create typed arrays representing the binary structure of a .wasm file. While extremely limited in functionality (only supporting basic integer arithmetic and a handful of operations), it demonstrates the core principles of converting higher-level code to WebAssembly, offering a concise and educational example of how a compiler operates at its most fundamental level. The author emphasizes this isn't a practical compiler, but rather a fun exploration of code golfing and a digestible introduction to WebAssembly concepts.
Hacker News users generally expressed appreciation for the conciseness and elegance of the WebAssembly compiler presented in the tweet. Several commenters pointed out that while impressive, the compiler is limited and handles only a small subset of WebAssembly. Some discussed the potential educational value of such a minimal example, while others debated the practicality and performance implications. A few users delved into technical details, analyzing the specific instructions and optimizations used. The overall sentiment leaned towards admiration for the technical achievement, tempered with an understanding of its inherent limitations.
The blog post argues that C's insistence on abstracting away hardware details makes it poorly suited for effectively leveraging SIMD instructions. While extensions like intrinsics exist, they're cumbersome, non-portable, and break C's abstraction model. The author contends that higher-level languages, potentially with compiler support for automatic vectorization, or even assembly language for critical sections, would be more appropriate for SIMD programming due to the inherent need for data layout awareness and explicit control over vector operations. Essentially, C's strengths become weaknesses when dealing with SIMD, hindering performance and programmer productivity.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges of using SIMD effectively in C. Several commenters agreed with the author's point about the difficulty of expressing SIMD operations elegantly in C and how it often leads to unmaintainable code. Some suggested alternative approaches, like using higher-level languages or libraries that provide better abstractions, such as ISPC. Others pointed out the importance of compiler optimizations and using intrinsics effectively to achieve optimal performance. One compelling comment highlighted that the issue isn't inherent to C itself, but rather the lack of suitable standard library support, suggesting that future additions to the standard library could mitigate these problems. Another commenter offered a counterpoint, arguing that C's low-level nature is exactly why it's suitable for SIMD, giving programmers fine-grained control over hardware resources.
Bunster is a tool that compiles Bash scripts into standalone, statically-linked executables. This allows for easy distribution and execution of Bash scripts without requiring a separate Bash installation on the target system. It achieves this by embedding a minimal Bash interpreter and necessary dependencies within the generated executable. This makes scripts more portable and user-friendly, especially for scenarios where installing dependencies or ensuring a specific Bash version is impractical.
Hacker News users discussed Bunster's novel approach to compiling Bash scripts, expressing interest in its potential while also raising concerns. Several questioned the practical benefits over existing solutions like shc or containers, particularly regarding dependency management and debugging complexity. Some highlighted the inherent limitations of Bash as a scripting language compared to more robust alternatives for complex applications. Others appreciated the project's ingenuity and suggested potential use cases like simplifying distribution of simple scripts or bypassing system-level restrictions on scripting. The discussion also touched upon the performance implications of this compilation method and the challenges of handling Bash's dynamic nature. A few commenters expressed curiosity about the inner workings of the compilation process and its handling of external commands.
Yasser is developing "Tilde," a new compiler infrastructure designed as a simpler, more modular alternative to LLVM. Frustrated with LLVM's complexity and monolithic nature, he's building Tilde with a focus on ease of use, extensibility, and better diagnostics. The project is in its early stages, currently capable of compiling a subset of C and targeting x86-64 Linux. Key differentiating features include a novel intermediate representation (IR) designed for efficient analysis and transformation, a pipeline architecture that facilitates experimentation and customization, and a commitment to clear documentation and a welcoming community. While performance isn't the primary focus initially, the long-term goal is to be competitive with LLVM.
Hacker News users discuss the author's approach to building a compiler, "Tilde," positioned as an LLVM alternative. Several commenters express skepticism about the project's practicality and scope, questioning the rationale behind reinventing LLVM, especially given its maturity and extensive community. Some doubt the performance claims and suggest benchmarks are needed. Others appreciate the author's ambition and the technical details shared, seeing value in exploring alternative compiler designs even if Tilde doesn't replace LLVM. A few users offer constructive feedback on specific aspects of the compiler's architecture and potential improvements. The overall sentiment leans towards cautious interest with a dose of pragmatism regarding the challenges of competing with an established project like LLVM.
This blog post explores a simplified variant of Generalized LR (GLR) parsing called "right-nulled" GLR. Instead of maintaining a graph-structured stack during parsing ambiguities, this technique uses a single stack and resolves conflicts by prioritizing reduce actions over shift actions. When a conflict occurs, the parser performs all possible reductions before attempting to shift. This approach sacrifices some of GLR's generality, as it cannot handle all types of grammars, but it significantly reduces the complexity and overhead associated with maintaining the graph-structured stack, leading to a faster and more memory-efficient parser. The post provides a conceptual overview, highlights the limitations compared to full GLR, and demonstrates the algorithm with a simple example.
Hacker News users discuss the practicality and efficiency of GLR parsing, particularly in comparison to other parsing techniques. Some commenters highlight its theoretical power and ability to handle ambiguous grammars, while acknowledging its potential performance overhead. Others question its suitability for real-world applications, suggesting that simpler methods like PEG or recursive descent parsers are often sufficient and more efficient. A few users mention specific use cases where GLR parsing shines, such as language servers and situations requiring robust error recovery. The overall sentiment leans towards appreciating GLR's theoretical elegance but expressing reservations about its widespread adoption due to perceived complexity and performance concerns. A recurring theme is the trade-off between parsing power and practical efficiency.
This guide provides a comprehensive introduction to BCPL programming on the Raspberry Pi. It covers setting up a BCPL environment, basic syntax and data types, control flow, procedures, and input/output operations. The guide also delves into more advanced topics like separate compilation, creating libraries, and interfacing with the operating system. It includes numerous examples and exercises, making it suitable for both beginners and those with prior programming experience looking to explore BCPL. The document emphasizes BCPL's simplicity and efficiency, particularly its suitability for low-level programming tasks on resource-constrained systems like the Raspberry Pi.
HN commenters expressed interest in BCPL due to its historical significance as a predecessor to C and its influence on Go. Some recalled using BCPL in the past, highlighting its simplicity and speed, and contrasting its design with C. A few users discussed specific aspects of the document, such as the choice of Raspberry Pi and the use of pre-built binaries, while others lamented the lack of easily accessible BCPL resources today. Several pointed out the educational value of the guide, particularly for understanding compiler construction and the evolution of programming languages. Overall, the comments reflected a mix of nostalgia, curiosity, and appreciation for BCPL's role in computing history.
Zyme is a new programming language designed for evolvability. It features a simple, homoiconic syntax and a small core language, making it easy to modify and extend. The language is designed to be used for genetic programming and other evolutionary computation techniques, allowing programs to be mutated and crossed over to generate new, potentially improved versions. Zyme is implemented in Rust and currently offers basic arithmetic, list manipulation, and conditional logic. It aims to provide a platform for exploring new ideas in program evolution and to facilitate the creation of self-modifying and adaptable software.
HN commenters generally expressed skepticism about Zyme's practical applications. Several questioned the evolutionary approach's efficiency compared to traditional programming paradigms, particularly for complex tasks. Some doubted the ability of evolution to produce readable and maintainable code. Others pointed out the challenges in defining fitness functions and controlling the evolutionary process. A few commenters expressed interest in the project's potential, particularly for tasks where traditional approaches struggle, such as program synthesis or automatic bug fixing. However, the overall sentiment leaned towards cautious curiosity rather than enthusiastic endorsement, with many calling for more concrete examples and comparisons to established techniques.
Summary of Comments ( 12 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43016944
Hacker News users generally praised the Zig compiler's fast incremental compilation demonstrated in the video. Several commenters highlighted the impressive speed and how it contributes to a positive developer experience. Some pointed out that while the demo is compelling, real-world project builds with dependencies might not be as instantaneous. Others discussed the potential of Zig's self-hosting capability and build system, comparing it favorably to other languages and build tools. A few users also expressed interest in Zig's memory management and safety features. There was some discussion about the practical limitations of incremental compilation and the importance of understanding its inner workings.
The Hacker News post titled "Incremental compilation instantly rebuilds the Zig compiler [video]" sparked a discussion with several interesting comments focusing on the impressive speed of Zig's incremental compilation, its potential, and some caveats.
Several commenters expressed awe at the demonstration in the video, highlighting how quickly the compiler rebuilds after changes. One user called it "insane" and "amazing," emphasizing how this rapid feedback loop could significantly improve developer productivity. The speed was compared favorably to other languages and build systems, with some mentioning their experiences with slower rebuild times in projects using languages like C++.
The discussion also touched on the technical aspects enabling this speed. Commenters speculated about techniques Zig might be using, such as caching and clever dependency tracking. Some discussed the benefits of Zig being self-hosted, allowing it to leverage its own compiler's efficiency for rebuilding itself. One commenter pointed out the importance of separating the "parsing/checking" phase from the "code generation" phase, potentially allowing for quick rebuilds when only the latter is needed.
A few users raised points about the video potentially being a "best-case scenario" demonstration. They questioned how well the incremental compilation would perform with larger codebases and more complex changes, suggesting real-world performance might differ. There was also some discussion about the nature of the changes made in the video and how they might be particularly suited to fast recompilation.
One commenter discussed the importance of considering the "cold" build time (initial compilation) in addition to incremental rebuilds, while acknowledging that fast incremental compilation is still a significant advantage. Another user brought up the idea of "hot reloading," where code changes are reflected instantly without even a recompilation step, wondering about its feasibility in Zig.
Finally, the discussion branched into comparing Zig with other languages like Rust and Go, discussing their respective build systems and compilation speeds. One comment mentioned the improvements in Rust's compilation times and another praised the "blazing fast" compilation of Go.