Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: a style question: |
| Date | 2015-09-01 20:45 +0000 |
| Organization | Freie Universitaet Berlin |
| Message-ID | <d4mh43F2geiU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <ms2do6$d72$1@dont-email.me> <d4k6i5Ff37rU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <ms2qfd$v8c$1@dont-email.me> <d4lu84Fr132U1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <ms4lr9$dih$1@dont-email.me> |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> I normally use a dynamic language, which is actually quite low-level
> >> compared with some, that can do much of what C++ can do, and with none
> >> of the fuss.
> >
> > If that is true I'd very much tempted to try that language. Alas,
> > I've never seen any documentation for it, just some often inscru-
> > table code snippets you post from time to time. So I still have
> > to be convinced that you found the silver bullet.
> That language has been developed since the 1980s. It's a not very
> remarkable interpreted, dynamic language, yet it has always been able to
> deal with those memory problems you mention, and can handle flexible
> vectors, strings and bit-arrays and much more.
> It doesn't have general purpose OO features; one reason is that many of
> the problems for which they would be needed in C++, are already solved
> in the language (generics and polymorphism for example). (The main such
> requirement has actually been overloading 'to-string' for printing user
> types, and that can be done with a discreet mechanism to link a type
> with a function).
In other posts you had given the impression that it were a com-
piled language, but now it's an interpreted one. I guess you are
aware that there are some differences between those two and that
an interpreted language may take some "liberties" that aren't
possible for a compiled one. So it's a bit like comparing apples
to bananas. What about the execution speed? C++ aims at retaining
a similar speed as C and seems to fare not too bad in that respect.
I guess that this hardly is possible with an interpreted one. Care
to show any meaningful benchmarks?
Is it bound to single processor architecture and/or operating
system? Inquirung minds may want to know.
And then I've still not seen a shred of a real description of your
language, just a very vague and general description, which might fit
the advertizing blurb for a lot of other interpreted languages. With-
out any reasonable documentation there's nothing to compare it to
C++, it's all claims you made. You wrote
"that can do much of what C++ can do, and with none of the fuss"
Either substantiate your claims or better refrain from making
them. Post a link to some real specifications that go beyond
the "it's better than C++" stage. Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
> OK, let me try an analogy too. Suppose someone took assembly language
> and extended it by trying to add high level constructs, type systems and
> so on. And did it largely by devising a really complicated macro system.
Are you talking about C? ;-)
> You would probably be bemused by the effort, mainly because the
> resulting language would be a poor imitation of a real HLL.
> The proper thing to do is to create a new, higher level language (eg.
> C). Then you do all your programming in this new language where all
> those features are built-in and can be used effortlessly without anyone
> being able to see the 'strings'.
> You probably won't need to write much assembly again.
We're all waiting for you to tell us how this silver bullet
language works. But some may not be holding their breaths.
> This is my view of C++: C with a very sophisticated macro system used to
> pretend it's a higher level language than it really is. But you can
> still see the strings.
Still to be able to "see the strings" as you call it has always
been an explicit design goal for C++. It is supposed to cater to
both worlds: as low level as you can go in C on the one hand, and
having all the features exptected from a higher-level language on
the other. So they seem to have achieved at least that first de0
sign goal quite nicely, even in your opinion...
But then I've got to disappoint you: C++ has done away with lots
of reasons to use macros (but still supports them). And charac-
terizing C++ as C with macros is, IMHO, not a very fitting de-
scription (it may have been 25 years ago, but times have changed).
But then, some people may describe the space shuttle as "just an
airplane with a rocket strapped on to it". This may cover a few
aspects, but, as a genuine description, it might be seen as a
bit short of the mark.
Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
a style question: G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 02:30 -0700
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-31 21:40 +1200
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-31 09:52 +0000
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 03:24 -0700
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 11:50 +0100
Re: a style question: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-31 13:21 +0100
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 05:41 -0700
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 14:55 +0100
Re: a style question: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-31 15:50 +0100
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 18:40 +0100
Re: a style question: Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-31 17:46 +0200
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 17:27 +0100
Re: a style question: Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-31 18:42 +0200
Re: a style question: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-08-31 17:41 +0000
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 15:33 -0700
Re: a style question: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-01 08:34 +0000
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-01 07:40 +1200
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 21:36 +0100
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-01 08:51 +1200
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-31 22:37 +0100
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 15:24 -0700
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-02 19:37 +1200
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-31 23:33 +0000
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 01:13 +0100
Re: a style question: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-01 18:21 +1200
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-01 15:23 +0000
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 18:06 +0100
Re: a style question: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-01 20:39 +0000
Re: a style question: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-01 20:45 +0000
Re: a style question: Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 22:53 +0100
Re: a style question: Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 17:51 -0700
csiph-web