Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int')
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 02:40:31 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <10tu3uv$3ob$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <10su8cn$am9i$1@dont-email.me> <10tpt9j$c3i4$1@dont-email.me> <10tpvqv$ivo$3@reader1.panix.com> <10ttvng$1j579$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 02:40:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="3851"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.misc:11787 comp.lang.c:398795

In article <10ttvng$1j579$1@dont-email.me>, Bart  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 10/05/2026 14:05, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <10tpt9j$c3i4$1@dont-email.me>, Bart  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2026 05:39, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> What makes you think that I'd need to write an own language given that
>>>> there's a plethora of languages of all kinds and paradigms existing.
>>>
>>> So where's the one that works like mine?
>> 
>> I mean, Rust does exactly what you were just describing.
>
>Rust could hardly be more different than mine.

You were describing what Rust calls, `include_str!` and
`include_bytes!`.  That's what I was referring to.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.include_str.html
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.include_bytes.html

>>> And why are there so many new ones still appearing? Most of them you
>>> will not know about.
>> 
>> Consider the possibility that you may be unique in the world in
>> possessing the combination of requirements and aesthetic
>> judgement that makes you feel you need a language like yours.
>
>My language fills the same niche that C does.
>
>I don't have much of a problem with the things that C can do, but with 
>how it does it, its syntax, its ancient baggage, its quirks, its 
>folklore, its Unix-centric ecosystem, its pointless UBs, its insistence 
>in working with every oddball processor, its solving every shortcoming 
>with macros, its adherents who will defend every misfeature to the death...
>
>Maybe the answer is to just create my own language?! I did exactly that, 
>and didn't to have to deal with C for 10-15 years, but you can't get 
>away from it because it's everywhere.

So like I said, you may be unique in the world in possessing the
combination of requirements _and aesthetic judgement_ that makes
you feel you need a language exactly like yours.

I think you'll find very few "adherents who will defend every
misfeature to the death."

>It is also frustrating looking at C forums and people thinking they are 
>too stupid to grasp something when it's language that could have been 
>better.

The problem you keep encountering here, specifically, is that by
your own admission you do not know C, the language, well enough
to accurately understand what would have made it a "language
that could have been better."

>> As for new languages, there are a number of reasons.  Most of
>> them are not particularly relevant here.
>> 
>> At this point, you may consider doing what Keith suggested, and
>> moving further discussion of your language to comp.lang.misc.
>
>Sure, a pretty much dead group.

Maybe you could liven it up.

        - Dan C.