4 ms·

(Note: I'm not complaining about this in general, just giving my opinion based on the way I happen to do programming) > which has been built hand-in-hand with

(Note: I'm not complaining about this in general, just giving my opinion based on the way I happen to do programming) > which has been built hand-in-hand with its IDE environment This is a red flag for me. What this implies is that the design of the language is likely heavily based on the expectatio that it will be used with the given IDE. Basing a language on C and C# in 2020 seems like a very uninformed choice to me. Sure, C is a great language, and C# is very successful, so they must be good right? But I suspect that line of thinking is also what made the languages as successful as they ultimately became. In a world where even javascript treats 0 as false, because it's what C did, whenever I see a programming language doing things "the C way", I just assume it's cargo cult language design, because most often that's what it is. That's not to say that there can't be good reasons for doing things the way C did them; after all, C did most of them for a good reason. As for the C# part; other than it also falling into the cargo cult language category that copies C without understanding C, I don't really like it's idea of object orientation (which is really just javas idea of OO with a fresh coat of paint). What syntax it copied from C is acceptable, but tell me a modern language that doesn't have somewhat acceptable syntax. Even functional languages don't look like lisp anymore (except lisp itself, of course, which makes up for its inconvenient syntax with other advantages).

MattRix 7y ago
These are really bad reasons to not use a language. Anyone who makes a language that is not like a popular language (ex C or C#) should have to do a lot of justification for it, not the other way around. Change for change's sake is bad. In other words, if you can make a language that does something new, without having to have new syntax or paradigms, that is much better.
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  > Anyone who makes a language that is not like a popular language (ex C or C#) should have to do a lot of justification for it Of course; but that's expected. My point is that this always applies, but sometimes "C does it, so I'm doing it as well" is treated as a good reason for things when it really isn't. Javascript, for example, treats 0 as false in if conditions. This made sense in C, which had no dedicated Nil-value and used the Nullpointer for that purpose, so 0 meant both the numerical zero and nil. Javascript, however, has a dedicated nil-value, so 0 really only stands for the number zero, which isn't any less a value than any other number, and thus has way less reason to be treated as falsey. So, in this example, while C had a good reason to do a thing, that reason just doesn't apply to JS. Maybe there are other good reasons that do apply to JS, maybe they just did what C did without thinking, maybe a bit of both. But it does underline a opint: There should be a reasoning behind every language decision; one that specifically applies to the language in question. And I do believe this isn't the case with many C features.

MattRix 7y ago

These are really bad reasons to not use a language. Anyone who makes a language that is not like a popular language (ex C or C#) should have to do a lot of justification for it, not the other way around. Change for change's sake is bad. In other words, if you can make a language that does something new, without having to have new syntax or paradigms, that is much better.

DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
> Anyone who makes a language that is not like a popular language (ex C or C#) should have to do a lot of justification for it Of course; but that's expected. My point is that this always applies, but sometimes "C does it, so I'm doing it as well" is treated as a good reason for things when it really isn't. Javascript, for example, treats 0 as false in if conditions. This made sense in C, which had no dedicated Nil-value and used the Nullpointer for that purpose, so 0 meant both the numerical zero and nil. Javascript, however, has a dedicated nil-value, so 0 really only stands for the number zero, which isn't any less a value than any other number, and thus has way less reason to be treated as falsey. So, in this example, while C had a good reason to do a thing, that reason just doesn't apply to JS. Maybe there are other good reasons that do apply to JS, maybe they just did what C did without thinking, maybe a bit of both. But it does underline a opint: There should be a reasoning behind every language decision; one that specifically applies to the language in question. And I do believe this isn't the case with many C features.