this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
207 points (96.4% liked)
Programming
17509 readers
376 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does Bash support those? I think the idea is that it's basically Bash, as if written by a sane person. So it supports the same features as Bash but without the army of footguns.
A language being compiled should be able to support higher-level language concepts than what the target supports natively. That's how compiling works in the first place.
That depends on how readable you want the output to be. It's already pretty bad on that front. If you start supporting arbitrary features it's going to end up as a bytecode interpreter. Which would be pretty cool too tbf! Has anyone written a WASM runtime in bash? ๐
Honestly, wouldn't it be great if POSIX eventually specified a WASM runtime?
Yeah definitely! I wouldn't hold your breath though. Especially as that's pretty much an escape route from POSIX. I doubt they'd be too keen to lose power.
it does, well at least associative arrays