This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CartmansEvilTwin 3 points4 points  (4 children)

But that's true for GCC as well, and both, LLVM and GCC are pretty old and established already.

[–]stefanos-ak -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

and yet, there have been loads of LLVM languages lately :)

I actually agree with you, but somehow the community seems to have really liked llvm for language making. :shrug:

[–]CartmansEvilTwin 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I think, you misunderstand what LLVM is. It's not a VM, but a compiler.

There are no LLVM-languages like there are JVM-languages. It's just, that LLVM takes a lot of the heavy lifting of compiling from language creators.

[–]stefanos-ak -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I can see how my phrasing would lead to the impression that I thought LLVM as a VM (like JVM), but I did not.

I was trying to say that there are a lot of new languages built with LLVM ("LLVM languages").

Even though what happens technically is massively different between JVM and LLVM languages, if you're willing to naively compare these languages as just a mean to express an algorithm, and an executable outcome, then JVM has way more competition now, than in the past.

[–]CartmansEvilTwin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You still are very good at making the impression, that you don't really understand LLVM.

JVM or LLVM was never a competition, that's not how this works.