4 ms·

Excuse the superficial review, but it looks like JSON, not C. Why the name association with C, apart from the fact that you can include C libs? Vala or D look m

Excuse the superficial review, but it looks like JSON, not C. Why the name association with C, apart from the fact that you can include C libs? Vala or D look much closer to C.

nddrylliog 17y ago
Actually, the syntax has evolved much since ooc 0.1 (which was then closer to C). The main implementation is still a source-to-source translator to C99 so the name association is still justified. Plus, if you don't like "ooc = object oriented C", you have plenty of choice. My personal favorite is "only on caturday". But YMMV.
- scott_s 17y ago
  That you compile (not translate) down to C is an implementation detail. I think you've deviated enough from C that a name change might help people's first impression - I had very different expectations because of the name.
  - nddrylliog 17y ago
    Just curious - what did you expect? And a name change isn't excluded, do you have any cool language name idea?
    - scott_s 17y ago
      Backwards compatible with C with object-orientation. When you include the name of another language in your own name, I assume you're either a subset or a superset of that language. I have no real suggestions, but it's worth noting that some popular languages have names with no relationship to the language (Java, Python, Ruby). I think perhaps the most important criteria are that it's a single syllable, easy to say, easy to type and doesn't have unfortunate associations.
      - nddrylliog 17y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean with "Backwards compatible with C". You can easily use ooc code from C, and C code from ooc. What more do you want? ooc is indeed not a superset of C syntactically. Objective-C is there for that, and its syntax is (imho) a mess. You can mix and match C and ooc code at will =)
        scott_s 17y ago
        Please don't confuse this with an issue of what I want. It's just what I think the name implies. "Backwards compatible" implies, to me, that if I take out the new features from the language, I'm left with legal code in the original language. This is markedly different than being able to call one language from another. I can call Fortran code from C, and I would never characterize Fortran and C as "backwards compatible." One is about source code compatibility. The other is about object code compatibility.
  - psranga 17y ago
    Keep the name. I wasn't confused. Looks sweet.
- aes 17y ago
  I quite like the one you get when you google for "ooc": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_character On a serious note: if you label your language as a C, people will be expect C syntax. I once stumbled upon BitC, but was disappointed because it looked like LISP.

Excuse the superficial review, but it looks like JSON, not C. Why the name association with C, apart from the fact that you can include C libs? Vala or D look much closer to C.

nddrylliog 17y ago

Actually, the syntax has evolved much since ooc 0.1 (which was then closer to C). The main implementation is still a source-to-source translator to C99 so the name association is still justified. Plus, if you don't like "ooc = object oriented C", you have plenty of choice. My personal favorite is "only on caturday". But YMMV.

scott_s 17y ago
That you compile (not translate) down to C is an implementation detail. I think you've deviated enough from C that a name change might help people's first impression - I had very different expectations because of the name.
- nddrylliog 17y ago
  Just curious - what did you expect? And a name change isn't excluded, do you have any cool language name idea?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Backwards compatible with C with object-orientation. When you include the name of another language in your own name, I assume you're either a subset or a superset of that language. I have no real suggestions, but it's worth noting that some popular languages have names with no relationship to the language (Java, Python, Ruby). I think perhaps the most important criteria are that it's a single syllable, easy to say, easy to type and doesn't have unfortunate associations.
    - nddrylliog 17y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean with "Backwards compatible with C". You can easily use ooc code from C, and C code from ooc. What more do you want? ooc is indeed not a superset of C syntactically. Objective-C is there for that, and its syntax is (imho) a mess. You can mix and match C and ooc code at will =)
      - scott_s 17y ago
        Please don't confuse this with an issue of what I want. It's just what I think the name implies. "Backwards compatible" implies, to me, that if I take out the new features from the language, I'm left with legal code in the original language. This is markedly different than being able to call one language from another. I can call Fortran code from C, and I would never characterize Fortran and C as "backwards compatible." One is about source code compatibility. The other is about object code compatibility.
- psranga 17y ago
  Keep the name. I wasn't confused. Looks sweet.
aes 17y ago
I quite like the one you get when you google for "ooc": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_character On a serious note: if you label your language as a C, people will be expect C syntax. I once stumbled upon BitC, but was disappointed because it looked like LISP.