Login
You're viewing the discuss.systems public feed.
  • mccmcc@mastodon.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 2:40 AM

    Essentially the goal above is that I view the "forward, then backward, then forward again, then also sometimes forward within the backward" structure of wast fundamentally confusing ( mastodon.social/@mcc/117386721 ) and I don't think it adds anything. When I saw it described I was like "oh that's SMART" but when I tried to use it it was just frustrating. I'm trying to recover the spirit of what they were *trying* to do without actively fighting the spirit of a stack language.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 2

Replies

  • Tom ForsythTomF@mastodon.gamedev.place
    Oct 10, 2026, 4:16 AM

    @mcc Yeah it's very odd. FORTH is a thing that has existed for a long time, and brains take maybe 10 minutes to get used to reading it fluently. And as you say - unambiguous. This just seems like a mess.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • mccmcc@mastodon.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 4:21 AM

    @TomF i find forth hard to adjust to, but— in order to write WAST, you have to adjust to it? so once you've adjusted to it, why go back and forth? maybe the person on the standards committee who got the LISP mode in actually does write WAST code where all stackiness is done via "unrolling". but, i found myself writing code like

    global.get $var ;; return value

    local.tee $v2
    global.get $var
    i32.mul
    local.get $v2
    i32.add
    global.set $var

    ;; end of function

    you can't LISP that!!

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1