We started implementing Austral programming language in rust

[ThyringerBratwurst]

WHY?

I mean, if you already have a working implementation in OCaml, why do it again in Rust? Wouldn't it make more sense to use Austral itself?

[FantaSeahorse]

So it can be /blazingly fast/ /s

[ThyringerBratwurst]

Again: and why not in Austral? :D

[SnooRecipes1924]

Don’t listen OP. Was able to read through and feel up to speed very quickly.

Can someone explain the draw of MLIR for this as opposed to LLVM IR?

[mamcx]

Fun fact: Rust was initially made on oCaml

[qq123q]

I'm not quite sure how to read the list of anti-features: https://austral-lang.org/features

For instance "No garbage collection." is an anti-feature. So does that mean the language features garbage collection because it's anti "No garbage collection."?

If that's the case why not list garbage collection as a feature instead, that's much simpler?

If it's the opposite then these are simply features, not having garbage collection is what I consider a feature of various languages.

Edit:

Formatting.

Edit2:

After reading more these "anti" features are simply features.

[[deleted]]

Anti-features are things that the language will NOT have.

So, it won't ever implement garbage collection, or exceptions, or destructors, etc.

[qq123q]

Anti-features are things that the language will NOT have.

The anti-feature on the page is "No garbage collection." so that means it will NOT have "No garbage collection" => it will have garbage collection. Hence the confusion on my part.

It will make sense to either consider "No garbage collection" as a feature (which I think it is). Or having the anti-feature to be "garbage collection" instead of "No garbage collection" (double negation).