[haskell-llvm] llvm-base vs. llvm-general

[Henning Thielemann]

Am 19.01.2014 10:27, schrieb Scott West:

> I remember you had reservations about the use/portability of TH in
> llvm-general, is this a non-starter for you, or can you live with it?

Template Haskell is the part that scares me most. In general I think 
that the FFI part must be very simple in terms of package dependencies 
and language extensions, because this is the part that most other llvm 
package will share.

Reaching an agreement about the perfect design might require more time 
than following different approaches in parallel. There are different 
needs for different applications. Compiler writers might prefer the 
syntax tree approach of llvm-general, they might prefer weak type 
checking (because they implement their own type checker) and they might 
even be happy with manual generation of ll-files. On the other hand JIT 
programming works best with the library interface and strong type 
checking. Thus maybe, it is better to leave the llvm-base/llvm path as 
is and follow the llvm-general path separately.