141–150 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, if you want to use asterisks without italicizing your text, you need to escape them with backslashes, and then you can write things like 5 * 2 * 1 = 10. That is, you'd write it like this: 5 \* 2 \* 1 = 10
Is there a place this is all written down? It's not in the FAQ...
a nitpick: a bit down the page there is stuff on the case syntax. The fact that "you can't have an empty break" is a good choice, but the fact that having two cases do the same thing has syntax case X: case Y: is footgun waiting to happen. I would strongly suggest the authors of C3 make stacking cases look like this: case X, Y:
"case X, Y" works for 3-4 values, but for something longer problems accumulate: case SOME_BAD_THING, SOME_OTHER_CONDITION, HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE: foo(); int y = baz(); Placing them on the next row is fairly hard to read case SOME_BAD_THING, SOME_OTHER_CONDITION, HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE, AND_NUMBER_FOUR, AND_NUMBER_FIVE, AND_THE_LAST_ONE: foo(); int y = baz(); In C I regularly end up with lists that have 10+ fallthroughs…
case 'a' .. 'z', 'A' .. 'Z', '0' .. '9', '_': ...;
Despite of the drawback I prefer. Also a Range can be a formal expression which simplifies the grammar of other sub-expressions and statements, not only switches but also array slices, tuple slices, foreach, literal bitsets, etc.
Based on this comparison : https://c3-lang.org/faq/compare-languages/ One would argue that the best C/C++ alternative/evolution language to use would be D. D also has its own cross-platform GUI library and an IDE. I wonder for which reasons D doesn't have a large base adoption.
I can only speak for myself: 1. It is so big. 2. It still largely depends on GC (less important actually) It keeps adding features, but adding features isn't what makes a language worth using. In fact, that's one of the least attractive things about C++ as well. So my guess: 1. It betted wrong on GC trying to compete with C++. 2. After failing to get traction, kept adding features to it – which felt a bit like there…
Strikes me as so so. defer is the kind of thing I would mock up in a hurry in my code if a language or framework lacked the proper facilities, but I think you are better served with the with statement in Python or automated resource management in Java. Similarly I think people should get over Optional and Either and all of that, my experience is that it is a lot of work to use those tools properly. My first experienc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer a "lightweight" C++. C++ is fine, but it's insanely slow to compile. I generally like C++, but I could trade anything to make it faster to compile, and most of the time, I just use a small subset of C++ that I feel okay with.
Pre-compiled headers, binary libraries, avoid header only libraries, if lucky to be on latest clang/VC++, modules.
Modules support was added recently, and I don't think most libraries or cmake support it yet, and I don't really see tutorial about good practices for modules, especially when it comes down to speeding up compilation.
Also modules do not really speed up compilation that much, apparently, or I have not seen benchmarks, maybe because modules are not well supported yet?
Modules are great in theory, but I am not sure they are usable in 100% of cases, especially with all the existing code that is out there?
Has anyone tried both C3 and Hare[1]. How do they fare? There seems to be quite the overlap between the two. [1] https://harelang.org/
Problem with Hare is that it is (or at least was last time I checked) Linux/Unix only and so by design. That kinda makes it DOA for many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also Odin: https://odin-lang.org/ Would be nice to have a list of these and comparisons
There is also C23 and at some point C2Y. C23 got typeof, constexpr constants, enums with underlying type, embed, auto, _BitInt, checked integers, new struct compatibility rules, bit constants, nullptr, initialization with {}, and various other improvements and cleanups. Modern C code - while still being simple - can look quite different than what people might be used to. C2Y already already got named loops, countof,…
At this point may be C2Y will get to be the BetterC, given adoption or any other alternative will take far longer than expected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"case X, Y" works for 3-4 values, but for something longer problems accumulate: case SOME_BAD_THING, SOME_OTHER_CONDITION, HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE: foo(); int y = baz(); Placing them on the next row is fairly hard to read case SOME_BAD_THING, SOME_OTHER_CONDITION, HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE, AND_NUMBER_FOUR, AND_NUMBER_FIVE, AND_THE_LAST_ONE: foo(); int y = baz(); In C I regularly end up with lists that have 10+ fallthroughs…
Many languages propose a system of ranges: case 'a' .. 'z', 'A' .. 'Z', '0' .. '9', '_': ...; although when working with enumerators, there is a still a risk caused by the fact that re-ordering enumerators or adding new ones can break the switches. Despite of the drawback I prefer. Also a Range can be a formal expression which simplifies the grammar of other sub-expressions and statements, not only switches but also…
case 'a'..'z':
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have both in C3: switch (x) { case 0: ... case 1 + 1: ... } This will behave in the normal way. But you can also have: switch { case foo() > 0: ... case bar() + baz() == s: ... } In which case it lowers to the corresponding if-else.
I am not a fan of this design in a low level language. The first version of switch does exactly one thing and is very clear. The second now is forcing me to think both about branching logic and control flow. I understand the surface level appeal of the syntax, but if I encountered code written with this feature in the wild, I would think something must have gone wrong in the program design.
I wish C3 has simple RAII/object/class built-in(no inheritance needed, no Polymorphism is fine, just some Encapsulation better than c's struct with function pointers), then it becomes a more powerful c, and a much simpler c++, really a sweet spot in the middle of both and works for 90% of the c/c++ use cases.