3 ms·

> It is not a surprise that large scale projects such as the Linux kernel use C without any problem. I'm sorry, but a post that lacks intellectual honesty when

> It is not a surprise that large scale projects such as the Linux kernel use C without any problem. I'm sorry, but a post that lacks intellectual honesty when discussing a rather complex topic such as this one just shouldn't make it to the HN front page. If you cannot bring yourself to at least admit in passing that increased expressiveness of a language can be beneficial in some situations, then I'm not even sure what to tell you. Your post is not weakened by admitting this, but I feel like the perception is that you must take a hardline approach. As I've said before, these sorts of blog posts skate by simply because they tell HN what it wants to hear without actually contributing anything new to the discussion. Thus, it is bikeshedding, and, ergo, not 'highly interesting' (per pg's guideline). Additionally, this topic comes up repeatedly, and I'm not certain why it needs constant discussion.

rbanffy 15y ago
I understand your point on increasing expressiveness, but how far do you need to go into post-incrementing C before you decide you'd better use a language made with the specific purpose of supporting such expressiveness rather than bolting it on top of C.
- cageface 15y ago
  Unfortunately there are still many problem domains where you absolutely require the low-level control of memory and execution time that C and C++ provide. In most of those domains the extra expressiveness of C++ is a big win, despite its many warts. Could you, with hindsight, design a better low-level language than C++ for these tasks? Yes. Is such a language available today? No. People write things like Photoshop and Cubase and Maya in C++ for a reason.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    http://www.bitc-lang.org/ http://www.bitc-lang.org/ Not there yet, but I'd say there's hope.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    Isn't D exactly what you're looking for here? That is, roughly equivalent to C++ but with a coherent design? I head Go also lets you manage memory manually if you want to.
    - greyfade 15y ago
      D somewhat lacks stability. The language is still maturing and there was, for a long time, a major split in which standard library was... standard (and even now, that question isn't really clear). There's also the issue of tools - there are only two D compilers I know of, and neither of them is that great (and GDC is buggy, IME). It's also got several warts of its own. When D matures a little more, maybe. At least C++ has a stable standard lib. That's why I'm holding off on using it, and (with the exception of the standard lib) probably why most people are holding back.
  - evangineer 15y ago
    I think the contenders here are Google's Go, Mozilla's Rust and for an academic longshot BitC. Thus far, Go is the most mature & has the most traction, but is still very much in its early days and a minority sport. Outside of Google, the most ambitious use of Go in production is Heroku's Doozer. There are those who would say D should be in my list above. However the D community seems to be fatally divided and D has failed to get sufficient traction despite being around for quite a few years.

rbanffy 15y ago

I understand your point on increasing expressiveness, but how far do you need to go into post-incrementing C before you decide you'd better use a language made with the specific purpose of supporting such expressiveness rather than bolting it on top of C.

cageface 15y ago
Unfortunately there are still many problem domains where you absolutely require the low-level control of memory and execution time that C and C++ provide. In most of those domains the extra expressiveness of C++ is a big win, despite its many warts. Could you, with hindsight, design a better low-level language than C++ for these tasks? Yes. Is such a language available today? No. People write things like Photoshop and Cubase and Maya in C++ for a reason.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  http://www.bitc-lang.org/ http://www.bitc-lang.org/ Not there yet, but I'd say there's hope.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Isn't D exactly what you're looking for here? That is, roughly equivalent to C++ but with a coherent design? I head Go also lets you manage memory manually if you want to.
  - greyfade 15y ago
    D somewhat lacks stability. The language is still maturing and there was, for a long time, a major split in which standard library was... standard (and even now, that question isn't really clear). There's also the issue of tools - there are only two D compilers I know of, and neither of them is that great (and GDC is buggy, IME). It's also got several warts of its own. When D matures a little more, maybe. At least C++ has a stable standard lib. That's why I'm holding off on using it, and (with the exception of the standard lib) probably why most people are holding back.
- evangineer 15y ago
  I think the contenders here are Google's Go, Mozilla's Rust and for an academic longshot BitC. Thus far, Go is the most mature & has the most traction, but is still very much in its early days and a minority sport. Outside of Google, the most ambitious use of Go in production is Heroku's Doozer. There are those who would say D should be in my list above. However the D community seems to be fatally divided and D has failed to get sufficient traction despite being around for quite a few years.