> But if you have ALL the semantics of C, why bother changing the syntax? Two reasons: first, change what sucks (like the useless clutter with braces and semic

> But if you have ALL the semantics of C, why bother changing the syntax? Two reasons: first, change what sucks (like the useless clutter with braces and semicolons, or the switches that fall through by default). Second, add more features on top of what we have. As much as I hate C++, we do live in a C dominated world, and C is… limited. The lack of a usable generics system is crippling. C++'s destructors really help with semi-automatic clean up. And it would be good to have a module system, and maybe built-in support for algebraic data types. (I must not overdo it: if I end up turning C into ML, I should use ML. Or Rust.) > if I asked you, no doubt you'd give me some. I'll give you one: Algebraic data types, which are virtually unmatched at representing abstract syntax trees, and basically any intermediate representation a compiler can come up with. Other arguments here: http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html > There's just one rule: no bootstrapping. Of the top of my head, I don't recall any compiler that doesn't bootstrap. In any case, I fully expect that most compilers are indeed written in C and C++, not in ML or Haskell: C and C++ are that popular. I also happen to think our industry as a whole is mostly nuts, retarded, and short-sighted.