This seems interesting for bpf programs that have essentially no user-space interaction which isn’t true for any of the things it lists on the landing page. Pixie, Cilium, Parca, etc have complex interactions between userspace and the bpf program, from loading and configuring to ongoing maintenance of bpf maps. I don’t really see why they would use this. I do like this type of thing for small programs like Inspektor Gadget does, but Inspektor Gadget already exists.
I guess this is feedback to maintainers of the project to clarify these two relationships.
eBPF modules themselves have to be written in C, and compiled to bytecode before they are loadable. The target architecture for llc is bpfeb and bpfel (big/little endian).
Usage/loading of eBPF modules, however, can be done in many userspace languages due to them offering the bindings for it.
I guess this is feedback to maintainers of the project to clarify these two relationships.