Experimenting with a Compiled Language

4 pointsby JhonPork16 days ago2 comments

platinumrad16 days ago
> At build time, a single profile is selected and all other code is erased at compile time — no runtime checks or overhead.
Can you expand on this?
- JhonPork16 days ago
  Profiles are resolved before code generation, not via conditionals. Each top-level item (function, block, impl, import) can be annotated with a profile (userland, kernel, baremetal). During parsing, everything is collected into the AST as usual. During IR lowering, the compiler is invoked with exactly one active profile. At that point: Nodes whose profile does not match are not lowered to IR at all They are dropped during IR validation, not guarded or compiled The resulting IR literally has no trace of the other profiles So this is not like #ifdef or runtime flags. The non-selected code never reaches: borrow checking optimization codegen linking From LLVM’s point of view, it’s as if the other code never existed. That’s why there’s no runtime overhead: no branches, no checks, no dead code elimination required. The IR is profile-pure by construction. This also lets the compiler enforce different rules per profile: userland: heap allowed, panics allowed kernel: no heap, no panic, stricter aliasing baremetal: raw pointers, UB allowed Invalid combinations simply fail IR validation. Happy to clarify further once the repo is public.
  - platinumrad16 days ago
    Code that is #ifdef'd out doesn't even make it into the AST so traces of it aren't going to be found in the IR either.
    I think I'm missing something really basic. The idea of three different subsets/dialects is interesting, but I would expect all three to be usable at the same time, like how unsafe blocks can be used in the performance-critical sections of a larger Rust program.
    JhonPork16 days ago
    Good question the distinction is intentional.
    Falcon’s profiles are not meant to be “dialects you mix freely” like Rust’s unsafe blocks. They represent different execution contracts, not different safety levels inside the same runtime.
    In Rust, unsafe still lives inside one program with:
    - one allocator - one runtime model - one ABI - one set of linking assumptions
    In Falcon, each profile defines a different world:
    - userland assumes a runtime: heap, panics, rich abstractions - kernel assumes no runtime: no heap, no panics, stricter aliasing - baremetal assumes no OS at all: raw pointers, direct memory, UB allowed
    Mixing them at runtime would force the strongest constraints everywhere, or require dynamic checks — which defeats the goal.
    Instead, Falcon treats profiles as compile-time execution modes, not scoped escape hatches.
    The reason non-selected profiles are erased before IR is so:
    - LLVM never sees incompatible assumptions - no dead-code elimination or guards are needed - profile-specific rules can be enforced structurally, not heuristically
    You still share logic by compiling the same source multiple times:
    falcon build app.fc --profile=userland falcon build app.fc --profile=kernel falcon build app.fc --profile=baremetal
    Or:
    falcon build app.fc --profiles=all
    This produces multiple artifacts from one codebase, each valid by construction for its environment.
    So the comparison isn’t “why not Rust unsafe blocks”, but: “Should fundamentally different execution contracts coexist at runtime, or be selected at compile time?”
    Falcon chooses the latter to avoid hidden coupling and runtime cost.
    platinumrad16 days ago
    Would it be accurate to think of it as a better way of doing the following?
``` int add(int a, int b) { #ifndef FREESTANDING printf("adding %d and %d\n", a, b); # return a + b; } ```
> You still share logic by compiling the same source multiple times
What's the benefit of this approach over sharing code via libraries?
JhonPork16 days ago
It’s similar at a surface level, but the key difference is when the choice is made and what is being selected. #ifdef and libraries still live inside a single execution contract — the compiler parses and reasons about everything, and constraints are mostly conventional. In Falcon, the profile selects a different execution contract before IR exists. Non-matching code is not typechecked or lowered at all, and different rules (heap, panics, aliasing, UB) are enforced structurally. Libraries share implementation; profiles share intent. The same source is treated as a specification from which multiple valid-by-construction artifacts are derived, rather than a single program patched with conditionals.
forgotpwd1616 days ago
Unusual concept. Will split my thoughts on implementation and adoption (in regards to design).
Implementation-wise: Tried myself something similar. One language (same core & lib & built-ins) with 2 front-ends that had different syntax and, but similar, semantics. (Didn't go far though.) An issue is not favoring one over the other. Inevitably, in a meta way, you'll if decide to self-host since will've to pick one form to do it. Also, having multiple co-existing forms in same file may complicate tooling.
About the last part, most similar things I've seen are: (i) Perl Mojo's embedded templates which can be included in same file with source code, (ii) Racket's #lang multi-file which allows combining, well, multiple files (thus also use different #lang directives) in same file.
Adoption-wise: It's in a weird position for widespread adoption. There's strong preference towards using a single language which splits into 2 branches: (1) using single language across every layer (basically Rust/Zig), (2) using high-level language with native-competive performance (Python+numpy, jax, etc / JS+ultrafast JIT / Julia).
Currently you target both (one base language) and none (different syntax/semantics). Could move towards an hybrid approach instead by having one syntax and high-level / low-level forms (uncertain what distinguishes kernel/baremetal currently). So some functionality may end up showing differently in the 2 cases to be more acceptable by both camps. This will probably also simplify tooling creation/maintenance.
Of course, since the project is quite experimental in nature, keeping it current way is interesting and very acceptable.
TL;DR Yes (~templating) - Yes (complexity, lower potential adoption) - No (unusual, experimental)
- JhonPork16 days ago
  This is fair feedback, and you’re pointing at the main tradeoff intentionally. One clarification that might help: Falcon isn’t multiple frontends or multiple grammars in the usual sense. The parser accepts all code into a single AST, but during IR lowering the compiler is invoked with exactly one active profile. Nodes whose profile doesn’t match are not lowered to IR at all — they’re rejected before borrow checking, optimization, or codegen. From the compiler’s point of view, the other profiles never existed. There’s no runtime guard, no macro-style inclusion, and no shared assumptions leaking across profiles. The goal isn’t to let people freely mix levels like unsafe {} in Rust, but to make domain boundaries explicit and enforceable. Kernel/baremetal code has fundamentally different invariants (no heap, no panic, different aliasing rules), and soft escape hatches tend to blur those over time. That said, I agree this does increase tooling complexity and may reduce adoption. This is very much an experiment to see whether hard separation + single IR is a better tradeoff for certain projects than one-size-fits-all semantics. Appreciate the comparison examples — they’re useful references.