Eurydice: a Rust to C compiler

They aren't usually building a compiler from scratch; they modify their existing compiler[1] for their new hardware, which is fractions of effort required compared to building a new compiler or modifying the LLVM backend.

Unless it's a completely new ISA, they'll spend an hour or less just adding in the new emit code for only the changes in the ISA.

----------------------------------

[1] Usually just the previous gcc that they used, which is why in 2022 I was working on brand new devices that came with a customised gcc 4.something

I wonder if this is it's killer feature - compatibility with the C ABI.

This is fantastic, if you're still excited about C. However, the question I am asking also has to do with the social relational aspects of programming. Here, significantly, when we are talking about the lives of programming languages/decades, I think we should ask whether other people, and, importantly, industry, will be equally jazzed about yours and others C code, in the future. Are people still going to be happy to deal with all of C's problems when, perhaps, alternatives exist, and if, say, memory safety becomes cheaper, etc.?

Could you share those?

Not trying to argue, just curious on the perspective of a C veteran, as someone who’s just starting with lower level languages.

I don't think you understand my point. I am explicitly saying "C will definitely survive (like COBOL)". I am asking is that the kind of life people want for C?

Assembly is used quite a lot and if you're a programmer Assembly is very valuable to know _at least_ how to understand it.

I disagree, also, that C should go away. Saying it was never a good language is a bit harsh. It's a great language. One that industries are built on. I'd rather read/write C code than, say, Rust.

Edit: There are, of course, languages coming up that can absolutely compete with C. Zig could be one when it's mature, for instance.

I think it would take a while for that to happen, purely due to momentum' the same thing that makes some people think that Rust isn't being used will affect any younger language just as much, if not more.

I think that there's an easier language than Rust struggling to come out of it, but if Rust had been that easier language with different compromises, I doubt it would have gained critical mass that allowed it to get where it is today. Being fast and safe meant it carved a niche in a "free square" that drove it to have a clear differentiator that allowed it to gain an initial audience. I also suspect that it is easier toale a language fast and then evolve it to make it easier to use, than it is to make it easy to use first and then make it fast.

You'd be disappointed if something 10x better came along tomorrow? I suppose you would you also be disappointed if magically we had economical fusion power, because you own utility stocks? Or we invented 10x better new car, because you already own an old car?

Of course the world wouldn't immediately move to one thing or the other, etc., and we'd still have a 10x better thing?

> Obviously I want better languages to come out, but I'd either want a bit of warning or a slower pace

The purpose of this thought experiment is to say -- it's perfectly fine for things to live and die, if they must. We've had a second Cambrian period for PLs. It's perfectly alright if some don't live forever, including Rust, which I really like.

In my thought experiment, Rust and C could also accept this new paradigm, and adapt, and perhaps become 10x better themselves. Though this is something heretofore C/C++ haven't done very well. IMHO new things don't preclude old things, and there mustn't be only one winner.

> Thankfully languages need about 10 years to mature from 0.1 to production readiness, and industry happily ignores marginally (and moderately) better languages

Which my thought experiment did as well? Read: This is a 10x improvement!

Who said it was dead? I was clear that I thought it was very much undead, like a zombie.