New language

Runtime optional.
GC optional.
Static typing.
Binary compatibility with C.
Algebraic types.
Lambdas.
Traits.
Safe shared mutable state.

>>40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlT3ARuUSGc
"coca-cola will make you into a black christian"

>>40
It's kind of sad that you had to spell out the obvious.

>>41
A worryingly sizeable fraction of Israel's population is highly nationalist.  The fact that ethnic ,,frictions'' such as depicted in the above video occur is not at all surprising.  Just goes to prove how idiotic nationalism is, regardless of who's doing it.

>>42
Shalom!

>>43
see >>44

>>42
It's kind of sad that it isn't obvious to everyone (see >>41,44).

Wat teh fuck whit you malloc/free?

>>46
2. Talking with the Jews cut them with short answer phrases. For example, on "if there is no water in the tap ..." you can answer "then wash the Jews with their blood," and the boastful "Jews are the most intelligent beings" could be countered with "have you smarties found a way to breathe Zyklon B?" Never enter into a serious discussion with a known Jew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiwBpbGmoU

For fuck's sake stop engaging them. This used to be a thread.

>>49
I love these bearded Jews in hats (Hassidim you call them?). They look honest, compared to their manipulative Zionist counterparts.

>>50
Shalom!

>>38
but I am sensing a deep disagreement on the readability topic already.
My ideally-readable language would (semantically) be a cross between Scheme and CL+CLOS, and (syntactically) a cross between Lisp and FIOC (à la sweet-expressions).  I find C fairly readable, but not very powerful (whereas ,,power'' is defined as how much you have to hammer your keyboard to implement the average something; proper macros are the ultimate power-enhancing feature).  I find Python fairly readable as well, and a bit more powerful (thanks to lambdas).  I find functional code very readable on average (with the notable exception being Haskell, which I abhor).

readability metrics
Here's a way to test it: for every language, pick the best professors+textbook and teach the language to a large group of uninitiated CS students for eight months.  Then get an expert programmer to implement a few algorithms (FizzBuzz^TM, qsort, FIBONACCI BUTT SORT, XML parser, mini HTTP server, etc.) in that language.  Strip all the comments from the source and leave only the function/variable names.  Now ask the students to reverse-engineer the source code and to explain exactly how each function/unit-of-code works and how it fits in the grand scheme of things; mark the submitted assignments and take the average -- this will quantify the language's readability.

>>52
And I thought the antisemitic shitposting was bad.

>>53
Fuck you.  What's wrong with my post?

Check 'em.

>>54
The obvious troll material in the first part and the sheer uselessness of the 'metrics' you propose. It's not a useful analytical tool, and makes no attempt to solve the problem of subjectivity (merely to aggregate it)... and since the study hasn't been done we have absolutely nothing in the way of results.

If you want to have a vote for for something, here's an idea: vote on the metrics themselves, not their results. Yes, that means you have to do the hard work of coming up with actual metrics.

>>56
I'm not trolling.  As for the readability metric, there cannot exist an objective readability metric since readability itself is subjective.  The best you can do is find what works best for as many people as possible.

Are you trolling?

>>57  >>56
/shalom kebabs/

>>57
You're not even describing metrics. It doesn't matter whether the metric is a measure of something whose value (worth) is subjective, the measurement itself can't be subjective.

OP, are you inventing Go?

>>60
Of the items on that list, Go has... lambdas. That's it.

You could argue traits if you really wanted to, but pedants would get pedantic.

>>59
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

Runtime optional.
C++11

GC optional.
C++11

Static typing.
C++11

Binary compatibility with C.
C++11

Algebraic types.
C++11

Lambdas.
C++11

Traits.
C++11

Safe shared mutable state.
C++11

Hmm, i dunno.. maybe.. SEPPLES?!!?

back to C^‽

back to Java/Javascript!

>>1
How would you pass algebraic types or closures to C code?

>>66
void *

>>63
C++11:

Algebraic types.
Sorry, no.

Safe shared mutable state.
What are you talking about? C and C++ have no memory safety in the singly-threaded case.

>>66
Most likely structs with enums + unions (yes they would lose their ADT semantics) and function pointers, respectively.

Back to VB/C#!

Back to ObjectiveJava#.NET11x++

Back to ObjectiveJava#.NET11x++

>>68
Those are trivial to implement. They just are not in standard library.

also, std::atomic-shit

>>1
Cool, you're talking about D.

>>68
As C++11 will finally have true tuples, it will have algebraic data types.

Adding hygenic macros to the feature list.

>>72
So can every TC language ever. The best thing about C++11 is you can easily implement a Lisp in it.

>>73
No. I know jack shit about D, but I'm not seeing anything on the memory safety angle. Also, what does it do shared mutable state?

>>74
No, tuples just give a product type. Sum types are what people want most out of ADTs.

No, tuples just give a product type. Sum types are what people want most out of ADTs.
isn't that what union is for?

>>76
In the C++ type system you cannot express the variant relationship between the union and any tags you've supplied. The lack of type safety in this relationship is counted as a feature, see "type punning."

>>77
Use boost::variant, then.

>>78
Why would I do that? I don't write C++.

In case you missed the memo, boost::variant doesn't provide ADTs in C++.

>>79
Why are you arguing about Sepples, then?

boost::variant provides tagged unions. boost::variant + tuples does provide ADTs in Sepples.