/prog/ - A more modern C

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-23 14:18

I'm looking for a C-like language that
1. keeps the pointers;
2. has generic types;
3. has better string handling than C;
4. doesn't make OOP-style for your own programs mandatory;
5. isn't C++.

Is there a better option than Go? It lacks generics.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-23 16:11

D? It meets all of your requirements.
http://dlang.org/
http://gdcgnu.sourceforge.net/

Name: L. A. Calculus !!wKyoNUUHDOmjW7I 2013-12-24 0:39

1. C DOES DAT.
2. C HAS DEM. WAT DA FUK DO U THINK void * IS?
3. HOW DA FUK CAN U HAVE BETTER STRING HANDLING THAN C? MAYBE UR JUST TOO RETOIDED 2 KNOW HOW TO HANDLE STRINGS PROPERLY.
4. C DOES DAT.
5. C AIN'T C++.

Name: C 2013-12-24 6:17

>>3
I feel C++ today
I am transC++
See my last standard
They even added to me threads
Yes, this is a poem

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 2:13

>1. keeps the pointers;
Haskell

>2. has generic types;
Haskell

>3. has better string handling than C;
Haskell

>4. doesn't make OOP-style for your own programs mandatory;
Haskell

>5. isn't C++.
Definitely Haskell. The only problem is that its not C-like. But it has {} brackets.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 4:36

>>3
5. C AIN'T C++.
Wrong, asshole.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 4:43

>>2
D looks really nice. My only concern with it is whether it will survive in the long run. Go has Google and while I know Alexandrescu's work is backed by Facebook I'm not sure how invested Facebook is in D.
>>5
I use Haskell on the side but I'm looking for an imperative language here.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 7:13

>>7
May I ask why? Do notation is usually more than enough for the imperative parts.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 11:10

Rust maybe?

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 13:50

>>6
Shalom!

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 16:26

>>8
Two reasons, basically. First, and most importantly, right now I'm more comfortable using an imperative language. Second, I want to translate, cover with tests, and then gradually replace some lousy old imperative code as a starting point for a new project.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 16:34

>>11

Sounds like what you need is C and a dose of man the fuck up

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 16:37

>>12
Why so?

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 18:05

javascript!

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 20:02

I'm hard.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 21:30

>>4
WAT DA FUK R U, SUM KINDA TRANSSEXUAL KAWAII SAFARII RETOID?

>>6
int main(void) { int class; return 0; }
VALID C, INVALID C++. C AIN'T C++. NOW GET DA FUK OUTTA MY THRED, BARNEY STROOTSTROOP.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-26 12:51

>>9
It's way immature still.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-27 13:56

>>17

Rust is still honestly the best option given these constraints.

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-27 18:03

>>9
Rust is shit. Functions aren't even pure by default!

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-02 0:06

>>19
Doesn't matter, since Rust doesn't provide anything to properly handle side effects.

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-05 14:41

>>18
Now that I've familiarized myself with Rust some more I quite like it. I wonder if it can make it with just Mozilla behind it.

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-05 21:03

>MOZILLA
NO THANKS

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-05 23:56

>>21
and samsung

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3514_7-57577639/samsung-joins-mozillas-quest-for-rust/http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3514_7-57577639/samsung-joins-mozillas-quest-for-rust/

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 14:10

Just go with Go.

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 14:36

>2013
>not being gay

ISHGIYYFDDD

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 23:13

Java

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 23:27

>>24
Does it even have pointers?
I thought it just had object references like Java.

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-11 1:55

Algol 68

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-11 5:32

install gentoo

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-11 7:15

Lisp

A more modern C

1 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-23 14:18

2 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-23 16:11

3 Name: L. A. Calculus !!wKyoNUUHDOmjW7I 2013-12-24 0:39

4 Name: C 2013-12-24 6:17

5 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 2:13

6 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 4:36

7 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 4:43

8 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 7:13

9 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 11:10

10 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 13:50

11 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 16:26

12 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 16:34

13 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 16:37

14 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 18:05

15 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 20:02

16 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-25 21:30

17 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-26 12:51

18 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-27 13:56

19 Name: Anonymous 2013-12-27 18:03

20 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-02 0:06

21 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-05 14:41

22 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-05 21:03

23 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-05 23:56

24 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 14:10

25 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 14:36

26 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 23:13

27 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-10 23:27

28 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-11 1:55

29 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-11 5:32

30 Name: Anonymous 2014-01-11 7:15