3 ms·
Clay[1] doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. The authors seem well-versed in programming language theory, but they also understand the practical needs
by groovy2shoes 14y ago
Clay[1] doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. The authors seem well-versed in programming language theory, but they also understand the practical needs of a systems language. What you end up with is a language that's sufficiently low-level to be a C replacement, but it offers a plethora of mechanisms for abstraction.
Of all the new languages billed as "systems languages", Clay is the only one that excites me.
It can also "quack like a duck" (to put it in TFA terms).
[1] http://claylabs.com/clay/ http://claylabs.com/clay/
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoI can't find any kind of getting started guide, and most of the libs have no documentation at all.
- qznc 14y agoI found a "Clay for C++ programmers" tutorial https://github.com/jckarter/clay/wiki/Clay-for-C---programmers https://github.com/jckarter/clay/wiki/Clay-for-C---programme...
- ponce 14y agoMay I mention Nimrod [1]? It has a lot going for it when it comes to meta-programming. [1] http://nimrod-code.org/ http://nimrod-code.org/