nddrylliog

27 ms·

271.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
What do you consider modern then? A reincarnation of Algol-68? Yet another Lisp? Another python-killer-killer (ie. a ruby-killer) ?
272.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
So <em> is not enough? I'm seriously considering the use of <blink> at this point.
273.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Reading your post was an experience in humility that usually only happens on reddit. Nevertheless, let me try to respond in a constructive manner. First off: I understand your cuteness overload at reading the frontpage. As a matter of fact,
274.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Two excellent points. A quick look at the manpage will make obvious that we routinely use gcc, tcc, clang and icc as C compiler backends =) Also, -O2 is used by default, try compiling with "+-O0", it's a bit faster. For big projects, it wou
275.
Rock 0.9.0, an ooc compiler written in ooc, is now self-hosting.(lists.launchpad.net)
7 points by nddrylliog 17y ago|2 comments
276.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Interesting =) I'm glad such a project exists. A different approach than http://ooc-lang.org/ for sure!
277.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Thanks for the nice feedback =) Usually half the reactions are "hey I didn't even read the frontpage but I know all about your language and you're mistaken because you're not the same as C++/Objective-C/D/my mom". Why isn't Reddit/FriendFee
278.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Closures are planned, indeed. About immutability, it's really a hard call for me to do here. C is very much about in-place data modification (as far as I know). Working with immutable objects seems to be a very different approach. What do y
279.
by 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
280.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
There is one actually, (and now I must reveal the ugly blog hack I made to integrate wordpress with DokuWiki), http://ooc-lang.org/blogbackend/?feed=rss2 It should probably be linked on the website. Lemme fix that. EDIT: Added link to rss
281.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
It's very difficult to determine what is "idiomatic", and how far to go. For example, in ooc you often have to choose between classes and covers. When you don't need inheritance, covers is often enough, + you get to work on the stack rather
282.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Just curious - what did you expect? And a name change isn't excluded, do you have any cool language name idea?
283.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
You're right, now that I'm a public person, I must be careful what I declare. (Damn you, scope) No seriously - who cares what I say? ;)
284.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
http://github.com/nddrylliog/ooc/issues/#issue/25 =)
285.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
I've added the optional {} after the empty TimeT cover =) Is it clearer now? I'm really glad to see that it scratches an itch for many people out there. As always, suggestions are welcome.
286.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Group answer so I don't blow up my HackerNews quota: thrives/strives : yeah! thanks a lot, fixed now wrong url in downloads: all fixed, thanks for reporting. guess vs inferred: replaced. why some things are prefix and some infix: that's the
287.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Indeed =) It will be implemented very simply, as in the latest Vala release (in fact they should even be compatible).
288.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
And now I feel very dumb. You were right :/ It's all fixed now, thanks a lot for reporting. (At first I thought that you thought that return type specification was non-optional, e.g. that it lacked "-> Void") About the other issues: are
289.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
QT is C++ and CUDA is C so yeah, it would be quite straightforward =) An ooc user has been looking into adapting http://qt.nokia.com/doc/qtjambi-4.4/html/com/trolltech/qt/qt... to generate ooc QT bindings. If you're interested, join us on
290.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Alright - before it becomes a troll =) I have no definitive opinion on C#. I don't use it, don't really care about it, and yeah the fact that bloats comes with successive versions doesn't mean there weren't improvements as well. In fact, bl
291.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
That's why it's called a "tour", not a reference documentation ;) Reference docs are being written, and are updated here http://docs.ooc-lang.org/ from this git repo http://github.com/nddrylliog/ooc-docs If you want to help you're welc
292.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
I'm part of the crowd who thinks it's too bad that D didn't get that far, that it was encumbered by licence issues and a syntax sometimes more complete than what you need. I'm trying to stay minimal with ooc's syntax. From 0.3 on, it's heav
293.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Done and done, but it's not such a good idea. ooc translates to C, and as someone mentioned, it's often the C you would write yourself. What you would really be benchmark here is Garbage collector vs vanilla malloc/free. And whether one or
294.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Hmm what is confusing in the hello world example? And yeah, you can totally use malloc/free. Either globally (e.g. just change the definitions of gc_malloc/gc_realloc etc. to be extern(malloc), extern(realloc), etc.) or locally for a specif
295.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
Please do =) We're open about its design, all contributors are welcome, all the code is BSD licensed on GitHub. Join the fun!
296.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
That's a good point. I'll write some docs on that now. Stay tuned.
297.
by 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 orient
298.
by nddrylliog 17y ago
I don't consider C# a modern language. C# is a good proprietary ripoff of Java, with a few things done right. Java itself was a wrong interpretation of Smalltalk with C++-like syntax to attract the masses and, they randomly crossed every fe