/prog/ - . — World4ch

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 21:40

There are no good C-like interpreted languages, /prog/. I plan to design a new language with the following features:

* C-like in syntax
* statically typed, not dynamically typed
* strongly typed, not weakly typed
* interpreted in the main implementation, but compilers are possible
* functions are first class objects
* classes, none of that duck typing shit
* basic data structures like vectors, lists, etc. are included, unlike in C
* templates for generic programming

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:26

>>36
All of these problems have been fixed over and over again. C doesn't have them because that's not what C's for.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:28

>>39
>Wow me,

This is a decent argument. Give a reason why this language deserves to exist.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:33

>>42
There are many languages which do not 'deserve' to exist: JavaScript, PHP, etc.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:39

Check my doubles.

Also, they only way to improve C would be to have anonymous functions. Anything more would make it worse.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:40

>>44

'

>C11

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:41

>>2
Everything is on the heap though, and garbage collected.

and this project is shit already

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:50

>>36
emulating it through void pointers or the preprocessor is disgustingly bad

Welcome to higher-level languages

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:02

>>1
static strong typing is a guarantee to flamboyant failure. fuck off and die.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:09

Also, C syntax is like dicks made of shit to parse. You're begging for a slow, buggy parser.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:09

>>48
Ahahaha, oh wait, you're fucking serious? AHAHAHAHAHA

Static strong typing is the only way to go for robust, reliable programs. JavaScript, PHP and Python are the opposite and look what have come out of them.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:10

>>49
That's sepples syntax, not C.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:35

>>51
They both can't be parsed by LL(0)

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:44

>>52
That doesn't make C difficult to parse. C is one of the easiest languages to parse.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 1:14

>>53

umeana lisp?

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 1:18

>>53

typedef is kind of a bitch.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 5:04

http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/coldmud/doc/coldmud_toc.html

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:48

This is stupid, fuck off back to /g/ you stupid piece of shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:49

>>55
So you think typedef makes C hard to parse?

Tell me, are you currently attending "special education" for those with "special needs", and I'm not talking about the good kind of special either.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:57

reading [some] C declarations is hard
typedefs to the rescue! of obscure pointers to functions returning pointers and receive some data and function pointers that return pointers.

Name: 59 2012-02-04 7:04

ret_type* (*func_pointer)(data_type*, ret_type* (*)(data_type*))

becomes

typedef ret_type* (*transform_func)(data_type*);

typedef ret_type* (*map_func)(data_type*, transform_func);



map_func ptr;

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 7:50

There's Vala >>1. Vala is pretty good, and it's just like you want your language.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 10:29

Static typing has no future. Even Haskell has failed.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 11:32

>>61
You mean the hack-job of a language with no spec of anything, just a bunch of shitty tutorials, and whose entire design and the whole idea behind it is "let's mostly, but not exactly, copy C# but make it generate C code and use the bullshit GObject system behind the scenes"?

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 13:12

All but
interpreted in the main implementation
can describe C++. Yes, you can even have functions as first class objects in C++11... but they're not first class objects by default. You have to use some shitstain syntax to make them.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 14:40

>>2
You're describing Go there.

>>1
Check out Limbo. However, it doesn't have classes, thank fuck.

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 14:45

>>44
GCC C

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 15:11

>>62

ok. Now say that to a medical device manufacturer.

.

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 21:40

41 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:26

42 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:28

43 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:33

44 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:39

45 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:40

46 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:41

47 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:50

48 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:02

49 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:09

50 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:09

51 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:10

52 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:35

53 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:44

54 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 1:14

55 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 1:18

56 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 5:04

57 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:48

58 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:49

59 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:57

60 Name: 59 2012-02-04 7:04

61 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 7:50

62 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 10:29

63 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 11:32

64 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 13:12

65 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 14:40

66 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 14:45

67 Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 15:11

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 21:40

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:26

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:28

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:33

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:39

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:40

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:41

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-03 23:50

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:02

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:09

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:09

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:10

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 0:44

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 1:14

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 1:18

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 5:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:48

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:49

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 6:57

Name: 59 2012-02-04 7:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 7:50

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 10:29

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 11:32

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 13:12

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 14:40

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 14:45

Name: Anonymous 2012-02-04 15:11