[dwheeler]

> I did. Anyone that ever wrote their own Scheme, Oberon, or C compiler in primitive language did. Common assignment in classrooms. :P

Well... you implemented a compiler. And hey, that's a great thing. I've implemented several myself. But I doubt that you proved that it was correct, or that it was a large-enough language that many people would want to use it directly. :-).

> I'm actually ignoring them on purpose to get a short-term win as you put it. Specifically, I'm expecting incremental, well-tested, inspectable compiler without expecting formal verification. I list it as necessary for full-trust but not necessary to get baseline up.

Okay. But as you note, you're also focusing on shorter-term wins... they're just different shorter-term approaches for for different goals. And that's okay.

[nickpsecurity]

"Well... you implemented a compiler. And hey, that's a great thing. I've implemented several myself. But I doubt that you proved that it was correct, or that it was a large-enough language that many people would want to use it directly. :-)."

You got me there. Nobody wanted to pay me for it or anything haha.

"but as you note, you're also focusing on shorter-term wins... they're just different shorter-term approaches for for different goals. And that's okay."

Fair enough. I'm going to continue on my route for this topic, though, given there's already a lot of attention on the other ones. Parallel searches sometimes bear fruit. If it goes nowhere, you can bet I still have a copy of your papers and the reproducible build stuff so I can jump on that. :)