3 ms·
...python? Or ruby? I disagree with his criteria, however. "An extremely good preprocessor" isn't necessary for every compiler/interpreter. Also, OOP isn't nec
by zbanks 16y ago
...python? Or ruby?
I disagree with his criteria, however. "An extremely good preprocessor" isn't necessary for every compiler/interpreter. Also, OOP isn't necessarily a requirement in modern languages -- there are other ways of doing things. (Go isn't OOP)
(I personally think Haskell should be the "better programming language," but mostly due to religious biases)
- leif 16y agoPython and ruby give you nothing in terms of direct memory manipulation. I read this as a request for a cleaner, more beautiful C. I sort of like that idea, but I actually think C is wonderful and it doesn't need to be cleaned up (maybe a couple things like safe macros). The one thing I can't fix in my head is how to do pointers and real, full-control memory manipulation (and all the fantastic benefits associated with that) and include closures and anonymous functions at the same time (which I think would be the most important addition to C). I agree with you though, that a preprocessor isn't necessary for a good language, in fact, the only reason CPP exists is because C isn't good enough by itself. A LISP-like macro system in C would be fantastic, but what it would really mean and look like, I can't quite imagine.