not being able to do alias i32 = int; was the biggest turn off for me
The C3 Programming Language
61–70 of 270 posts
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#62I think the switch statement design is a foot gun: defaults to fall-through when empty and break when there is a body. https://c3-lang.org/language-overview/examples/#enum-and-swi...
If I aimed and shot a gun at my foot and a bullet didn’t go through it, I would trash the gun.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#63Was an interesting ready but sad to see that there is nothing special for matching or restructuring tagged unions (beyond the special cased optional type). That's one of the things from Rust I miss the most in my day to day work with C/C++.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#64Dumb question about contracts: I was reading the docs ( https://c3-lang.org/language-common/contracts/ ) and this jumped out "Contracts are optional pre- and post-condition checks that the compiler may use for static analysis, runtime checks and optimization. Note that conforming C3 compilers are not obliged to use pre- and post-conditions at all. However, violating either pre- or post-conditions is unspecified behav…
The way I reason about it is that the contracts are more soft conditions that you expect to not really reach. If something always has to be true, even on not-safe mode, you use "actual" code inside the function/macro to check that condition and fail in the desired way.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s giving you an expression capability so that you can state your intent, in a standardized way, that other tooling can build off. But it’s recognizing that the degree of enforcement depends on applied context. A big company team might want to enforce them rigidly, but a widely used tool like Visual Studio would not want to prevent code from running, so that folks who are introducing themselves to the paradigm can…
This is not just expressing intent. The documentation clearly states that it's UB to violate them, so you need to be extra careful when using them.
Perhaps another helpful paradigm are traffic/construction cones with ‘do not cross’ messages. Sometimes nothing happens, other times you run into wet concrete, other times you get a ticket. They’re just plastic objects, easy to move, but you are not meant to cross them in your vehicle. While concrete bollards are a thing, they are only preferable in some situations.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#66" the C-like for programmers who like C." Sounds intriguing. But then, the first thing I noticed in their example is a double-colon scope operator. I understand that it's part of the culture (and Rust, C#, and many other languages), but I find the syntax itself ugly. I dunno. Maybe I have the visual equivalent of misophonia, in addition to the auditory version, but :: and x I like C. But I abhor C++ with a passion, p…
Namespaces to me are more about naming conflict resolution and code readability, and I think of them more as prefixes to namespace member names, as opposed to those member names being part of a hierarchy.
It also helps code readability to know that a::b is referring to a namespace, without having to go lookup the definition of "a", while a.b is a variable access.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#67I wonder, at which point it is worth it to make a language? I personally implemented generics, slices and error propagation in C… that takes some work, but doable. Obviously, C stdlib goes to the trash bin, but there is not much value in it anyway. Not much code, and very obsolete. Meanwhile, a compiler is an enormously complicated story. I personally never ever want to write a compiler, cause I already had more fun…
> Meanwhile, a compiler is an enormously complicated story. I don't intend to downplay the effort involved in creating a large project, but it's evident to me that there's a class of "better C" languages for which LLVM is very well suited. On purely recreational grounds, one can get something small off the ground in an afternoon with LLVM. It's very enjoyable and has a low barrier to entry, really.
>On purely recreational grounds, one can get something small off the ground in an afternoon with LLVM. It's very enjoyable and has a low barrier to entry, really.
Is there something analogous for those wanting to create language interpreters, not compilers? And preferably for interpreters one wants to develop in Python?
Doesn't have to literally just an afternoon, it could be even a few weeks, but something that will ease the task for PL newbies? The tasks of lexing and parsing, I mean.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#68I wonder, at which point it is worth it to make a language? I personally implemented generics, slices and error propagation in C… that takes some work, but doable. Obviously, C stdlib goes to the trash bin, but there is not much value in it anyway. Not much code, and very obsolete. Meanwhile, a compiler is an enormously complicated story. I personally never ever want to write a compiler, cause I already had more fun…
This actually started of by Christoffer (C3 author) contributing to C2 but not being satisfied with the development speed there, wanting to try his own things and moving forward more quickly.
Apparently together with LLVM it was doable to write a new compiler for what is a successor to C2.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#69Does anyone who has actually used C3, Odin, and Zig talk about how to think of these three?
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#70Just browsed the doc to get the answers to two burning questions, which I will dump here in case it saves some time to others: - uses LLVM (so: as portable as LLVM) - sadly, does not support tagged enums Apart from that it adds a few very desirable things, such as introspection and macros.
[deleted]