Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.misc > #11787
| 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 | 2026-05-12 02:40 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <10tu3uv$3ob$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <10su8cn$am9i$1@dont-email.me> <10tpt9j$c3i4$1@dont-email.me> <10tpvqv$ivo$3@reader1.panix.com> <10ttvng$1j579$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
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.
Back to comp.lang.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 13:05 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-12 02:28 +0100
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 18:37 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-12 22:32 +0100
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 15:28 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 02:49 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-12 23:21 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 02:53 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-13 14:15 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:30 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 20:20 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 02:40 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-12 15:11 +0100
csiph-web