RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
50% Positive
Analyzed from 412 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#haxe#fusion#language#code#languages#target#opencl#writing#https#rust

Discussion (17 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I wonder what performance and generated code size/quality look like.
> I've read about Haxe in 2000s, before I started my work on Fusion. They have different design goals: in Haxe you create whole apps, in Fusion you create components to be used from other languages. Haxe has syntax similar to the (now dead) ActionScript, Fusion is similar to C#. Fusion transpiles to C, D, Swift, TypeScript, OpenCL and Haxe does not.
Why is this needed? I can't imagine that. I am sure writing code in fusion will produce C++ and Python code which is suboptimal and doesn't fit well in these languages.
It still feels overcomplicated compared to the standard solution of writing a library in a compiled language you like, exposing a C ABI compatible interface, and hooking it up to any language that can work with that (i.e. any language).
I don't know if fusion is the solution, but I know C isn't.
Rust is not easy to target efficiently, due to the borrow checker, and they likely don't want to dyn Box everything.