[winter_blue]

Are you kidding? Many other languages are as portable, if not more portable.[α] Your point would be valid in 1972, not in 2022. I can't believe you're regurgitating the same "portability" from 50 years ago, today (unless you meant it as a joke and forgot to include a /s).

[α] Languages targeting LLVM or supported by GCC are portable to every target machine code / ISA / architecture supported by those toolchains. JVM, JS, etc are portable to all the platforms they support. You don't need to do any extra work (of recompiling) if you use a bytecode VM / platform (for example, like JVM).

[zbentley]

Well, there's portability and then there's portability. Getting LLVM to emit artifacts on a given target is easy. Getting assurance that big, complex interfaces that integrate with the underlying OS in extremely specific ways (i.e. your programming language's IO or concurrency system) behave correctly on that target, and have appropriate testing, community support, and documentation is another thing entirely.

Like, I get it. The claim that "rust isn't portable" is often used as a thought terminating cliche, and is often wrong or irrelevant in context. But the claim "X uses LLVM, LLVM can target environment Y, therefore X is fully compatible with Y" is just as reductive and misleading.

[mistrial9]

does an LLVM requirement fit the social and license goals of this eco-system fundamental project?