31–40 of 192 posts
There are some syntax choices that aren't ones I'd have made (eg I prefer `ident: Type` and types being uppercase, I don't like `fn type identifier ()` for functions etc), but coming from C, I can see how and why it ended up like it did, and overall this looks really good. Great work!
How does this compare to Zig or Odin, which have the same goals of improving upon C and have gotten occasional publicity here on HN?
It is answered here: https://c3-lang.org/faq/compare-languages/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the author, let me add something beyond the comparison. Zig and Odin are very different languages, Odin is – as its slogan goes - "for the Joy of Programming". Zig on the other hand doesn't feel that this is a goal. From what I can tell Zig fans like to wrestle with the features of Zig to figure out how to fit their solutions within the constraints of the language. A mental challenge, similar to that of fighting t…
> People who "figured out" Zig tend to be fiercely loyal to the language in a similar way as Rust evangelists to Rust. This is very much not productive and you’re now part of spreding this narrative. There’s plenty of people out there who has «figured out» and appreciate both Zig and Rust without becoming attached to it. I’m interested in communities which looks towards other languages for inspiration and admiration,…
Every language designer takes things they like about some languages and leaves things they don't like.
One thing I just can't understand is proactively using the :: syntax. It's sooo ugly with so much unnecessary line noise. Just use a single period! I think one of the best decisions D made was to get of -> and :: and just use . for everything.
`::` simplifies the module vs identifier resolution. In C3 there is something called "path shortening", allowing you to use `foo::bar()` in place of something like `std::baz::foo::bar()`. To do something similar with `.` is problematic, because you don't know where the path ends. Is `foo.baz.bar()` referring to `foo::baz::bar()` or `foo::baz.bar()` or `foo.baz.bar()`?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who "figured out" Zig tend to be fiercely loyal to the language in a similar way as Rust evangelists to Rust. This is very much not productive and you’re now part of spreding this narrative. There’s plenty of people out there who has «figured out» and appreciate both Zig and Rust without becoming attached to it. I’m interested in communities which looks towards other languages for inspiration and admiration,…
So which language do you use then? I've never seen a language that doesn't have bad things to say about other languages. Zig bdfl himself accused vlang of committing fraud a while back. Every language designer takes things they like about some languages and leaves things they don't like.
I think there's a difference between a critical generalization of a community and the mindset behind it and how that relates to the language (without weighing in on how legitimate that criticism is), and a direct accusation that one individual did a specific bad thing.
One thing I just can't understand is proactively using the :: syntax. It's sooo ugly with so much unnecessary line noise. Just use a single period! I think one of the best decisions D made was to get of -> and :: and just use . for everything.
Asking because my above question and this current post about C3 are related to this recent post by me, which had a good number of comments:
Ask HN: What less-popular systems programming language are you using?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who "figured out" Zig tend to be fiercely loyal to the language in a similar way as Rust evangelists to Rust. This is very much not productive and you’re now part of spreding this narrative. There’s plenty of people out there who has «figured out» and appreciate both Zig and Rust without becoming attached to it. I’m interested in communities which looks towards other languages for inspiration and admiration,…
So which language do you use then? I've never seen a language that doesn't have bad things to say about other languages. Zig bdfl himself accused vlang of committing fraud a while back. Every language designer takes things they like about some languages and leaves things they don't like.
That's why I said "communities" and not "languages". Every programming language has a wide set of people who use it. You can always find some people who constantly say bad things about other languages. You can also find people who are interested in the different trade offs of the language. I use languages which are technically interesting, and then I engage with the parts of the community which are interested in finding the best solutions to actual problems.
And guess what? Most of the Zig and Rust community are, in my experience, way more focused on solving real problems than to push their language at all cost. Both /r/rust and /r/zig will often recommend different languages. I mean, this was the most upvoted comment around how to convince someone's boss to use Rust over Python: https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/14a7vgo/how_to_convin....