4 ms·

So, Objective-C #import plus some linting rules and minor syntax adjustments? I somehow doubt that this would be worth the change (especially if you have to "ex

by mhd 5y ago

So, Objective-C #import plus some linting rules and minor syntax adjustments? I somehow doubt that this would be worth the change (especially if you have to "extern" stuff like a C++ programmer). People can live with all kinds of minor annoyances but tend to switch mostly for bigger changes. But hey, hope that something interesting grows out of this. I quite like almost-C languages, but then again I also liked the Bourne Shell macros ;) One of these days I have to write a Oberon-in-sheeps-brackets. For an interesting "C++ that doesn't look like C" variant, consider SPECS (Conway/Werther;1996)[1]. [1]: https://users.monash.edu/~damian/papers/HTML/ModestProposal.html https://users.monash.edu/~damian/papers/HTML/ModestProposal....

guerrilla 5y ago
No, the list of features is No mandatory header files New semantic macro system Module based name spacing Subarrays (slices) and dynamic arrays built in Compile time reflection Enhanced compile time execution Generics based on generic modules "Result"-based zero overhead error handling Defer Value methods Associated enum data Built in strings No preprocessor Undefined behaviour trapped on debug by default Optional pre and post conditions Associated enum data sounds like variant types. It has namespacing and it has generics. That alone is almost worth it to me (not that I'd use a language with no community.) If it had lambdas, that'd be the quadrivium for me. Apparently it has struct subtyping too.
lerno 5y ago
No, that's probably not a good description. I'm not saying you will appreciate the language, but it is basically C. - "Failables" (which is somewhat like Result) offers an alternative to error handling which mostly mirrors how one commonly does it in C, but with conveniences. Since it works a bit different from all other error systems, I'd have to point to the docs for a summary. :( - Semantic macros where the big win is that they are easier to read and write. (This is heavily inspired by the ASTEC macro system for C) - Generic modules, which works similar to macro-based generics in C, but easier to read and work with. - Subarrays (slices), yes they make a huge difference even though they're an obvious addition. - A bunch of GCC extensions - Optional design by contract There are no objects, and certainly no dynamic OO system. There are no constructors and destructors or similar explicit code. Calling C is straightforward, you just need to declare that it exists, like you would in C. So `extern func int printf(char*, ...)` -> now you can do `printf("Hello %s\n", "World");` the opposite also works, so if you define a function `func void foo() @extname("c3_foo")` you can then call it from C as `c3_foo()` (or skip the `@extname` but you would have to call `my_module_foo()` instead due to namespacing.

by mhd 5y ago

guerrilla 5y ago

No, the list of features is No mandatory header files New semantic macro system Module based name spacing Subarrays (slices) and dynamic arrays built in Compile time reflection Enhanced compile time execution Generics based on generic modules "Result"-based zero overhead error handling Defer Value methods Associated enum data Built in strings No preprocessor Undefined behaviour trapped on debug by default Optional pre and post conditions Associated enum data sounds like variant types. It has namespacing and it has generics. That alone is almost worth it to me (not that I'd use a language with no community.) If it had lambdas, that'd be the quadrivium for me. Apparently it has struct subtyping too.

lerno 5y ago

No, that's probably not a good description. I'm not saying you will appreciate the language, but it is basically C. - "Failables" (which is somewhat like Result) offers an alternative to error handling which mostly mirrors how one commonly does it in C, but with conveniences. Since it works a bit different from all other error systems, I'd have to point to the docs for a summary. :( - Semantic macros where the big win is that they are easier to read and write. (This is heavily inspired by the ASTEC macro system for C) - Generic modules, which works similar to macro-based generics in C, but easier to read and work with. - Subarrays (slices), yes they make a huge difference even though they're an obvious addition. - A bunch of GCC extensions - Optional design by contract There are no objects, and certainly no dynamic OO system. There are no constructors and destructors or similar explicit code. Calling C is straightforward, you just need to declare that it exists, like you would in C. So `extern func int printf(char*, ...)` -> now you can do `printf("Hello %s\n", "World");` the opposite also works, so if you define a function `func void foo() @extname("c3_foo")` you can then call it from C as `c3_foo()` (or skip the `@extname` but you would have to call `my_module_foo()` instead due to namespacing.