I really want to like QBE, but declaration blocks like this make it feel like 1970s Unix code more than a modern hackable piece of software:
int t, x, r, rf, rt, nr;
bits rs;
Ins *i, *i1;
Mem *m;
Ref *ra[4];
I think it deters some users by making it hard to read and understand the relatively subtle code in the 300 line function that follows. (Skill issue, I know)
Windows support is huge. One of the barriers to me considering QBE for a project in recent memory was that it had no story for proprietary OSes (Windows, MacOS), and whether I like it or not, those make up the overwhelming majority of desktop-like market share. (this is the same reason I find Hare, a language that builds with QBE, interesting but not practical for my own uses - targeting only Linux and the BSDs is a non-starter, even if I personally am a Linux-only guy)
One of the benefits of this new QBE feature of supporting windows could be that this allows a language like Hare to be used for windows too, all the more power to Hare and other programming languages built on top of QBE!
(* Normally a thread that recent with significant comments would count as a dupe (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), but it didn't get that much frontpage time so I've made an exception.)
Is QBE intended for production use, or is it primarily a research/educational project?
I really want to like QBE, but declaration blocks like this make it feel like 1970s Unix code more than a modern hackable piece of software:
I think it deters some users by making it hard to read and understand the relatively subtle code in the 300 line function that follows. (Skill issue, I know)Windows support is huge. One of the barriers to me considering QBE for a project in recent memory was that it had no story for proprietary OSes (Windows, MacOS), and whether I like it or not, those make up the overwhelming majority of desktop-like market share. (this is the same reason I find Hare, a language that builds with QBE, interesting but not practical for my own uses - targeting only Linux and the BSDs is a non-starter, even if I personally am a Linux-only guy)
I agree!
One of the benefits of this new QBE feature of supporting windows could be that this allows a language like Hare to be used for windows too, all the more power to Hare and other programming languages built on top of QBE!
Related. Others?
QBE – Compiler Back End - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48059633 - May 2026 (28 comments*)
Blaise – A modern self-hosting zero-legacy Object Pascal compiler targeting QBE - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48058644 - May 2026 (55 comments)
Qbecc – QBE based C compiler - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461195 - Oct 2025 (3 comments)
Let's write a peephole optimizer for QBE's ARM64 back end - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45099348 - Sept 2025 (1 comment)
QBE – Compiler Back End - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346320 - May 2024 (37 comments)
cproc – Small C11 compiler based on QBE - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32466098 - Aug 2022 (1 comment)
QBE 1.0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31846433 - June 2022 (3 comments)
I wrote a peephole optimizer for QBE - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30864448 - March 2022 (5 comments)
Cproc C Compiler - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28242024 - Aug 2021 (45 comments)
Cproc – a C11 compiler using QBE as a back end - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25273918 - Dec 2020 (1 comment)
QBE vs. LLVM - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25273907 - Dec 2020 (99 comments)
Show HN: QBE – a new compiler back end - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11555527 - April 2016 (68 comments)
(* Normally a thread that recent with significant comments would count as a dupe (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), but it didn't get that much frontpage time so I've made an exception.)