4 ms·

> I'm puzzled with what the market for these kinds of languages are. There's a significant number of C programmers who want something slightly more modern and

by rwbt 4y ago

> I'm puzzled with what the market for these kinds of languages are. There's a significant number of C programmers who want something slightly more modern and convenient but don't want to write C++ due to a number of reasons. I think Zig, D are examples of this niche but syntax wise they don't completely look like C.

bachmeier 4y ago
> I think Zig, D are examples of this niche but syntax wise they don't completely look like C. This is technically true, but someone that likes writing C while wanting a few extra features would mostly be able to write the same C code they always have if they stick to D's betterC. (I'm not familiar enough with Zig to comment on that.) Edit: Should also add that D now compiles C code, so a C programmer could continue to write C as they want, write a few D functions where those features help, and compile them without writing any binding code.
com2kid 4y ago
> I think Zig, D are examples of this niche but syntax wise they don't completely look like C. That is because C's type declaration format is provably, as in actually provably, terrible. There is a reason the majority of modern languages have switched away from how C declares types. Honestly it'd be nice if the C committee could find a way to tack on a new variable declaration syntax to C, so everyone didn't have to keep looking up, or using tools, to declare non-trivial function pointers.
- __d 4y ago
  Please, just no. The C committee should do basically nothing. If someone, somewhere, finds an actual bug in the spec, then fine -- fix that. But don't go adding new features. If you want something new, then make a new language. Leave C alone.
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    As someone who actually uses C I think the C standards committee needs to be taken on a one way to trip out behind the barn for the crime of being useless. They've had 30 years to fix things like C not having arrays, lack of modules and name spaces. Purists can always use std=-c89.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    > If you want something new, then make a new language. Adding an optional new declaration syntax isn't a new feature, it is a change to the parser. C's declaration syntax is awful. In fact I'd go so far as to claim that one reason function pointers aren't heavily used in C as compared to modern C++, C#, JavaScript, etc, is purely because the syntax around them is so awful. (They obviously are used, but no one likes using them)

by rwbt 4y ago

bachmeier 4y ago

> I think Zig, D are examples of this niche but syntax wise they don't completely look like C. This is technically true, but someone that likes writing C while wanting a few extra features would mostly be able to write the same C code they always have if they stick to D's betterC. (I'm not familiar enough with Zig to comment on that.) Edit: Should also add that D now compiles C code, so a C programmer could continue to write C as they want, write a few D functions where those features help, and compile them without writing any binding code.

com2kid 4y ago

> I think Zig, D are examples of this niche but syntax wise they don't completely look like C. That is because C's type declaration format is provably, as in actually provably, terrible. There is a reason the majority of modern languages have switched away from how C declares types. Honestly it'd be nice if the C committee could find a way to tack on a new variable declaration syntax to C, so everyone didn't have to keep looking up, or using tools, to declare non-trivial function pointers.

__d 4y ago
Please, just no. The C committee should do basically nothing. If someone, somewhere, finds an actual bug in the spec, then fine -- fix that. But don't go adding new features. If you want something new, then make a new language. Leave C alone.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  As someone who actually uses C I think the C standards committee needs to be taken on a one way to trip out behind the barn for the crime of being useless. They've had 30 years to fix things like C not having arrays, lack of modules and name spaces. Purists can always use std=-c89.
- com2kid 4y ago
  > If you want something new, then make a new language. Adding an optional new declaration syntax isn't a new feature, it is a change to the parser. C's declaration syntax is awful. In fact I'd go so far as to claim that one reason function pointers aren't heavily used in C as compared to modern C++, C#, JavaScript, etc, is purely because the syntax around them is so awful. (They obviously are used, but no one likes using them)