levodelellis

Great. C++20 has been my favorite and I was wasn't sure what the standards says since it's been a while. I'll be reading the C++26 standard soon

I have no faith in anyone doing AI to accomplish anything (especially relative to how much money they spend) except John Carmack. People should be trying to throw money at him

Haha, yes

You don't really need to deal with gcc backend. Most languages are expressible in C89. It'll obviously be less readable since generated lines look nothing like source lines but C89 beats llvm in most cases, especially if the C compiler supports assembly. I stuck to using intrinsics only because I heard of compilers producing worse code when it hits asm blocks since it can't understand it as well as intrinsics. I took out llvm last time it broke my compiler because it didn't add any value

I don't know what point you're trying to make but your question was what's an alternative to llvm. People writing compilers always used C89 or a version of it (C11 allows an easier atomic implementation). There's a lot more C89 compilers than backends that llvm supports. When I was writing arduino code clang/llvm couldn't generate the AVR code for the board. The default toolchain was gcc with an AVR backend. IIRC it had optimizations and was the only reasonable compiler I could use. There's nothing wrong using C as your backend

I never heard of hardware without one

Many compilers including my own uses C89

Yes. I also written a compiler and I also complained about LLVM.

LLVM is

  - Slow to compile
  - Breaks compilers/doesn't have a stable ABI
  - Optimizes poorly (at least, worse than GCC)

Swift I never used but I tried compiling it once and it was the bottom 2 slowest compiler I ever tested. The only thing nearly as bad was kotlin but 1) I don't actually remember which of these are worse 2) Kotlin wasn't meant to be a CLI compiler, it was meant to compile in the background as a language server so it was designed around that

Mojo... I have things I could say... But I'll stick to this. I talked to engineers there and I asked one how they expected any python developers to use the planned borrow checker. The engineer said "Don't worry about it" ie they didn't have a plan. The nicest thing I can say is they didn't bullshit me 100% of the time when I directly asked a question privately. That's the only nice or neutral thing I could say

A 200ms difference is adding or removing 200lines lines of implementation, and spliting it up into a file can make it slower because of include overhead. You completely made up C being twice as fast as C++.

Oh? I use a boring old $5 VPS (using nginx for https). There's no cloudflare or anything else involved. I wonder why that's happening. I may look into that this week

tcc is 8x faster, twice as fast isn't doing it justice.

As for the header thing, that'd could potentially be true if the compile time was something like 450ms -> 220ms, but why bother saying it when you're only saving a few hundred milliseconds