Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Any decent modern general-purpose languages?

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-25 10:55

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?

Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI!fR8duoqGZdD/iE5 2012-07-29 5:04

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-29 5:34

>>136
+1 for mentioning gcc is complete shit

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

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List