6 ms·

It could hardly be more C-like. Are you getting distracted by the syntax?

kelnos 7y ago
When we talk about something being "C-like", the syntax is what we're talking about. Being "distracted by the syntax" doesn't make sense when the syntax is the entire point of the statement being made.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  When "we" talk? I suggest that in the future if you mean syntactically similar you say syntactically similar. But then, of course, it wouldn't have much to do with Zig's "appeal as better C than C", which prompted this whole discussion.
- dnautics 7y ago
  Admittedly it's been decades since I've done any C (literally since 1999, except for an LD_PRELOAD shim I wrote about 5 years ago) but being someone who prefers C and other ALGOL-syntax derivates I find the syntax to be relatively easy to grok. One advantage over C is that the confusing pointer/array/function pointer thing has a well-defined order in Zig, there's no "spiral order" nonsense going on.
  - naniwaduni 7y ago
    There is no spiral. C's pointer declaration syntax is arguably backwards ("declaration follows usage") but fundamentally follows normal precedence rules. The so-called spiral is total nonsense misinformation.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      What about this do you find disagreeable? http://c-faq.com/decl/spiral.anderson.html http://c-faq.com/decl/spiral.anderson.html
      - dnautics 7y ago
        The fact that it's wrong if you try to generalize it beyond the examples given?
        saagarjha 7y ago
        Does it? Here's one that I grabbed from cdecl.org: char * const (*(* const bar)[5])(int ) And its translation: declare bar as const pointer to array 5 of pointer to function (int) returning const pointer to char This seems like what I'd get from the spiral technique.
      - palotasb 7y ago
        The spiral rule works if "pointer to" and "function returning"/"array of" alternate but it breaks if they don't, i.e., if you have arrays of arrays or pointers to pointers. int** arr1_of_arr2_of_arr3_of_ptr_to_ptr_to_int[1][2][3] In this case, spiraling between [1], ×, [2], ×, [3], int is obviously wrong, the correct reading order is [1], [2], [3], ×, ×, int. (Edit: read × = *) The Right-Left Rule is quoted less frequently on HN but it's a correct algorithm for deciphering C types: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/rt_lt.rule.html http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/rt_lt.rule.html
        diegoperini 7y ago
        I would name that algorithm "inside-out" instead of "right-left" if my understanding of its behavior is correct.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        Aren't you supposed to treat multiple array or pointers as a group?
    - dnautics 7y ago
      That's exactly my point. It's confusing enough that someone e made a bullshit claim that was totally wrong and confused noobs for years. That won't happen with zig.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        That won't happen with any sane systems language all the way back to Algol dialects. The only thing that C has taken from Algol, was structured control and data.
- ant6n 7y ago
  They are both close-to-the-metal, few-abstractions, procedural, imperative Systems programming languages with explicit memory management and layout.
agapon 7y ago
Exactly. I would appreciate an explanation what makes zig c-like if its syntax is nothing like c? What does "c-like" even mean then?

When we talk about something being "C-like", the syntax is what we're talking about. Being "distracted by the syntax" doesn't make sense when the syntax is the entire point of the statement being made.

balfirevic 7y ago
When "we" talk? I suggest that in the future if you mean syntactically similar you say syntactically similar. But then, of course, it wouldn't have much to do with Zig's "appeal as better C than C", which prompted this whole discussion.
dnautics 7y ago
Admittedly it's been decades since I've done any C (literally since 1999, except for an LD_PRELOAD shim I wrote about 5 years ago) but being someone who prefers C and other ALGOL-syntax derivates I find the syntax to be relatively easy to grok. One advantage over C is that the confusing pointer/array/function pointer thing has a well-defined order in Zig, there's no "spiral order" nonsense going on.
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  There is no spiral. C's pointer declaration syntax is arguably backwards ("declaration follows usage") but fundamentally follows normal precedence rules. The so-called spiral is total nonsense misinformation.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    What about this do you find disagreeable? http://c-faq.com/decl/spiral.anderson.html http://c-faq.com/decl/spiral.anderson.html
    - dnautics 7y ago
      The fact that it's wrong if you try to generalize it beyond the examples given?
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Does it? Here's one that I grabbed from cdecl.org: char * const (*(* const bar)[5])(int ) And its translation: declare bar as const pointer to array 5 of pointer to function (int) returning const pointer to char This seems like what I'd get from the spiral technique.
    - palotasb 7y ago
      The spiral rule works if "pointer to" and "function returning"/"array of" alternate but it breaks if they don't, i.e., if you have arrays of arrays or pointers to pointers. int** arr1_of_arr2_of_arr3_of_ptr_to_ptr_to_int[1][2][3] In this case, spiraling between [1], ×, [2], ×, [3], int is obviously wrong, the correct reading order is [1], [2], [3], ×, ×, int. (Edit: read × = *) The Right-Left Rule is quoted less frequently on HN but it's a correct algorithm for deciphering C types: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/rt_lt.rule.html http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/rt_lt.rule.html
      - diegoperini 7y ago
        I would name that algorithm "inside-out" instead of "right-left" if my understanding of its behavior is correct.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Aren't you supposed to treat multiple array or pointers as a group?
  - dnautics 7y ago
    That's exactly my point. It's confusing enough that someone e made a bullshit claim that was totally wrong and confused noobs for years. That won't happen with zig.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      That won't happen with any sane systems language all the way back to Algol dialects. The only thing that C has taken from Algol, was structured control and data.
ant6n 7y ago
They are both close-to-the-metal, few-abstractions, procedural, imperative Systems programming languages with explicit memory management and layout.

agapon 7y ago

Exactly. I would appreciate an explanation what makes zig c-like if its syntax is nothing like c? What does "c-like" even mean then?