Post by twetch#7335

b is interactive. much better error reporting and development potential.

b code is smaller(shrug?) and uses much less stack(shrug?).

b generated code is fast. already matches the fastest gcc/llvm.

b is fast. 1000 times faster than gcc/llvm/visualc. game changer.

notes:
A.S kernel interface (map unmap ..)
a.c replaces libc (fp and pf need more work)
b.c compiles b code

p() parse(this would change for c89 etc. minor. the rest is the same.)
d() to register, constant or global
e() to register
f() force
..

argtypes(for x,y,z) declared.

result and local types are automatic.

for arm, llvm, etc. just need to replace:
jmp tst cmp o2
ret cll psh pop

e.g. binary search

b: b[Ii]{h:#x;l:0;while(h>l)$[y>x[i:/l+h];l:i+1;h:i];l}

c: I b(I*x,I y){I h=x[-1],i,l=0;while(h>l)if(y>x[i=l+h>>1])l=i+1;else h=i;R l;}

http://www.kparc.com/b/readme.txt

b parses and compiles a language isomorphic to c.

same types. same ops. same control. more compact. (no precedence)

fast c compiler (called b: isomorphic to c)

computer language benchmarks: t.b and t.c

     run  compile(ms) runsize
 b   230     .06       1K

gcc-O1 320 60.00 3K
gcc-O2 230 90.00 3K
gcc-O9 230 200.00 8K

todo:

align, inline, unroll (we win)
arm, llvm, ..
c89, c99, .. (not interesting right now since i already prefer b and there is no c code we care about)

b : +-*%^&|<> = / \ $[c;t;f]

c = +-*/^&|<> == << >> if(c)t;else f;