Any decent modern general-purpose languages?

Assembly: Unportable. No standardised syntax.
Classical Visual Basic: Some good parts. Shit overall.
C: Shitty standard library. Deficient type system. Can't into Unicode. ``Unportable assembly.''
D and C++: Obfuscated boilerplate languages.
Java and C#: Forced OOP.
Common Lisp: Archaic cons-based library. Writing complex macros is a PitA due to the unlispy quotation syntaxes.
Scheme: CL without namespaces.
Clojure and Erlang: Concurrency is unneeded outside of a few very specific applications. Parallelism is where it's at.
OCaml: Great language, only one, deficient, implementation.
Haskell: Academic sex toy.
Forth: Reinventing the wheel over and over.
Ruby: Implicit declarations. Slow as fuck.
Python: Implicit declarations. FioC.
Perl: Brain damage.
PHP: Pretty much shit.
JavaScript: "" == false

It's impossible to list them all but, please, what decent modern general-purpose languages exist?

>>111
True portability is a myth.
I would say it's the least common denominator of architectures capabilities. Obviously, when you need maximum performance/power efficiency, you'll end writing one specialized version for each.

>>121
What exactly are you writing that needs to run on more than one architecture or platform?

>>122
Operating system, web browser, games, media player, user interface to hardware controllers

>>84
>You find a more clever solution than the ASM output
>encouraging people to be clever
get out

>>124
>encouraging people to be stupid
get out

>>125
>>124-san has a point. “Clever” designs suffer from not-invented-here syndrome more often, i.e. more bugs and less support. Masters don't only know how but when they use each tool.

01111111 GET

2^7 ``GET''!

>>127
299593 GET? wtf

>>129
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world....

>>129
what does it feel like to have friends

>>130
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world, those who fully understand octal, those who understand it but feign ignorance so their peers won't call them faggots, those who confuse it with hexadecimal, those who confuse it with decimal, those who confuse it with binary, those who refuse to understand it, those who are incapable of understanding it, and those who only use it for UNIX permissions.

>>132
Too long of a delivery, but you get points for a valiant attempt.

>>133

I found it rather humorous, but I find you point assignment to be absolute enraging and I hope you slowly die in a fire in which you seek shelter in a pool of mud, and temporarily find relief, but are inevitably slowly cooked by the surrounding flames.

>>134
Too long of a delivery, but you get points for a valiant attempt.

>>112
Actually, the majority of stuff I work on is x86, Windows or Linux. If I was using some other architecture then I'd write in Asm for that too. (Although MIPS and ARM are a bit... boring.)

>>115,118,120
I was expecting replies like this. You still put blind faith in compilers and think they're god-like and better than anyone else. That's what the academia always says. But consider that if it was true, I wouldn't be writing this today. I've probably read through more compiler output than anyone else here, and quite frankly, most of it sucks. ICC is the best I've seen, MSVC is a close second, and GCC is far behind. Delphi is... about the worst I've ever seen.

>>123
The majority of those are provided in different versions for each platform. Like I said above, if you really want portability, use Java.

>>124,125,126
If they're lazy idiots they can let the compiler hold their hand and do everything for them. If they're intelligent they'll find a way to do things more efficiently. It's about letting the programmer exploit her capabilities to the limit.

My little cudder
Compilers are magic

>>136
+1 for mentioning gcc is complete shit

- Tremendous Faggot
  163k •31 •320 •628
  96% accept rate

>>38
>crying about garbage collection
as if writing 1 line is so hard

>>26
also no pointers? have fun being a useless language

have fun with your unused "future" languages

>>138
The other ones are non-free and closed-source, thus introduce security risks.

>>136,138
I'm no x86 assembly expert but what's wrong with gcc's output?

>>141
It doesn't have NSA backdoors so it threatens national security.

>>141
It can't produce code as well as something like ICC in some cases. Then again, ICC probably has a massive budget pumped into it compared, so it kinda makes sense.

12 squared dubs get claimed

>>136

I was expecting replies like this. You still put blind faith in compilers and think they're god-like and better than anyone else. That's what the academia always says. But consider that if it was true, I wouldn't be writing this today. I've probably read through more compiler output than anyone else here, and quite frankly, most of it sucks. ICC is the best I've seen, MSVC is a close second, and GCC is far behind. Delphi is... about the worst I've ever seen.

Yes, we don't have a qualifying implementation yet. But someday we might. And with the benefits it would bring, I don't understand why more people aren't concerned with improving the tools they use every day. Instead, they just crank out applications using what is currently available and popular. A possible solution to a problem brought up in this thread:

* include a construct in the language that places constraints on data types. This constraint can be formally checked with static code analysis, tested dynamically with asserts in testing, and then used as a hint for optimization when building the release version. The compiler could consider a violation of the constraint as undefined behavior, and assume its truth when generating optimal assembly. This way, you can get your architecture specific optimizations without creating undocumented and undetectable restrictions on the inputs.

Would be nifty:

* Automate profiling of generated machine code. Select constructs that give the best performance based upon empirical data collected from are large set test runs.

If they're lazy idiots they can let the compiler hold their hand and do everything for them. If they're intelligent they'll find a way to do things more efficiently. It's about letting the programmer exploit her capabilities to the limit.

Lazy and idiotic is all relative. Computer are idiots. But they are far from lazy. A VERY determined idiot may be able to write a better program than you if given a disproportionately larger amount of time to do it in.

>>145




I think that












what you want













already exists














in the form of
















design by

















contract.













Some systems,


















in fact,



















do statically check
















them, when they
















can.

>>145
Automate profiling of generated machine code. Select constructs that give the best performance based upon empirical data collected from are large set test runs.
http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/asplos06.pdf

Hey faggots, try out this multiboot kernel: ArCtGwMAAQD7T1HkAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAACAAEAAxwLkAgAsAZjEBQUEPMcHgCIH5oI8LAHLu6+c=

>>5
So, I'm not alone with such thoughts. Unfortunately one have to write his own language with such properties. Atleast I haven't seen one.

>>1
Haskell. Anything other is shit.

>>136
If they're lazy
Writing clean code isn't lazy, it's polite.

exploit her capabilities to the limit.
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."

>>146,147

Yeah, I didn't doubt that they didn't already exist. Just if they were in wide spread use in industry. Thanks for the link.

>>147

The problem of emitting efficient SIMD code has confounded
compiler-authors for many years; gcc at least does not appear to
attempt to use SIMD instructions.

Oh gaawd

>>152
For contracts:
The D Programming Language has contracts by the kitchen sink law. No static checking, but they're not checked at runtime when release-building.
C# has http://msdn.microsoft.com/it-it/devlabs/dd491992.aspx
There was some work on static contracts for Haskell here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/verify/HaskellContract.ps but it doesn't seem to be implemented anywhere, nor I know if there have been any new developments.

Racket-lang.org

I am offended that PHP is listed as a programming language. PHP is not a programming language. It's a miscarriage of engineering, a monstrously deformed abortion that by some cruel fluke of nature has managed to cling to life.

>>156
I agree. But not just cling to life; it has become central to the average, modern website. Such a shame..

>>156
It would be unfair to not list PHP and then list JS, D, C++ and C.

>>158
Please don't even begin to compare C to PHP.

>>156
PHP is touring complete