←back to thread

jank is C++

(jank-lang.org)
252 points Jeaye | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
johnnyjeans ◴[] No.44535498[source]
I'm not surprised to see that Jank's solution to this is to embed LLVM into their runtime. I really wish there was a better way to do this.

There are a lot of things I don't like about C++, and close to the top of the list is the lack of standardization for name-mangling, or even a way mangle or de-mangle names at compile-time. Sepples is a royal pain in the ass to target for a dynamic FFI because of that. It would be really nice to have some way to get symbol names and calling semantics as constexpr const char* and not have to deal with generating (or writing) a ton of boilerplate and extern "C" blocks.

It's absolutely possible, but it's not low-hanging fruit so the standards committee will never put it in. Just like they'll never add a standardized equivalent for alloca/VLAs. We're not allowed to have basic, useful things. Only more ways to abuse type deduction. Will C++26 finally give us constexpr dynamic allocations? Will compilers ever actually implement one of the three (3) compile-time reflection standards? Stay tuned to find out!

replies(8): >>44535506 #>>44535588 #>>44535621 #>>44535873 #>>44535967 #>>44536143 #>>44539903 #>>44540443 #
o11c ◴[] No.44535621[source]
> the lack of standardization for name-mangling, or even a way mangle or de-mangle names at compile-time.

Like many things, this isn't a C++ problem. There is a standard and almost every target uses it ... and then there's what Microsoft does. Only if you have to deal with the latter is there a problem.

Now, standards do evolve, and this does give room for different system libraries/tools to have a different view of what is acceptable/correct (I still have nightmares of trying to work through `I...E` vs `J...E` errors) ... but all the functionality does exist and work well if you aren't on the bleeding edge (fortunately, C++11 provided the bits that are truly essential; everything since has been merely nice-to-have).

replies(2): >>44535879 #>>44538499 #
1. rs186 ◴[] No.44538499{3}[source]
> There is a standard and almost every target uses it ... and then there's what Microsoft does. Only if you have to deal with the latter is there a problem.

Sounds like there isn't a standard, then.

replies(1): >>44539969 #
2. duped ◴[] No.44539969[source]
It's Itanium and MSVC. That's it, that's the list.