Why can't there be a programming language that supports the Ruby idea of making everything an object, but at the same time use C++ features like copying with marshaling (I don't know whose idea it was to make everything in Ruby a pointer, but it makes making hard copies a bitch), multiple inheritance and constructor overloading. Furthermore, why can't said language be made to compile down to assembly like C and C++, rather than the vast majority of Object Oriented languages which run in an interpreter?
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-12 0:56
As long as it's statically typed, it would be relatively trivial- even moreso if you simply translate the high-level-language-with-good-syntax down to C++ and then use g++. But no one has done it yet, low hanging fruit IMO.
Except of course with all the ints and floats and such being considered objects, and all the arrays being essentially vectors.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-12 1:24
>>4
It doesn't need to be. A nicely defined subset with modern, non-curlybrace syntax, and you'd probably have a popular language on your hands.
For example, vala/geany are nice (the former uses c#-like syntax, however). If you've seen the benchmarks you can get pretty impressive speeds. Shame they rely on gobject, though.