5 ms·
I wonder why this type of language is so attractive to bike shed. Just the right balance of complexity and usefulness perhaps?
by toxik 7y ago
I wonder why this type of language is so attractive to bike shed. Just the right balance of complexity and usefulness perhaps?
- galangalalgol 7y agoTo hide any les of the machine you start giving up portability. c- might be a counterexample.
- kbd 7y agoMaybe because it's the layer of the stack most ancient, unsafe, and in need of replacing.
- jessermeyer 7y agoI think it's a mistake to think that in 10,000 years C will remain the golden standard for a language that still is reasonably close to the hardware.
- lang_throw_away 7y agoIt's no longer close to the hardware
- jessermeyer 7y agoNot necessarily contrary to my point.
- IshKebab 7y agoIts not! The vast majority of languages are garbage collected high level languages. How many non-GC'd C replacement languages have been created? Seems like there are only a handful. Hardly bikeshedding.
- nickmqb 7y agoThere is huge potential for a modern light weight C replacement. Golang went in this direction, but it has a runtime with a GC. Rust is low level, but is quite a complex language. So, there is a gap in the market. One cool aspect of all of these new programming languages entering the arena is that most of them only have a minimal (or no) runtime. That should make it much easier to interoperate between all of these languages, something which has traditionally been difficult with most programming languages. Disclosure: I'm the author of Muon [1], a low-level language that embodies similar design principles. [1] https://github.com/nickmqb/muon https://github.com/nickmqb/muon