This is great. It made me smile.
Cello – High Level C
11–20 of 83 posts
Re: Cello – High Level C
#12There was a snippet I saw a while ago where someone made C look like Java for a joke, using macros. I wish I could find it to share here, it's great.
Re: Cello – High Level C
#13What type of sorcery is this?
The good one, dark, very dark.
Re: Cello – High Level C
#14Just my opinion, don't mean to be inflammatory, but if the user has to know and manually manage stack vs heap objects, then I wouldn't call it "High Level" language.
Re: Cello – High Level C
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking for myself, I’ve never found C++’s complexity appealing, and it only seems to be getting worse over the last 20 years. As the creator says, it’s not for production use. If I’m doing a side project, I’d give this a serious look.
> Speaking for myself, I’ve never found C++’s complexity appealing, and it only seems to be getting worse over the last 20 years. True, but that's why we've got Rust these days. (Rust is actually more optimized than C, e.g. it will automatically reshuffle your structs to get rid of excess padding, and reference accesses will automatically take advantage of compiler-checked 'restrict' constraints, thus equalizing perf…
Rust is a compelling alternative to C++ for large scale systems software (browsers, video games, etc) but, as of the last time I checked (~2 months ago) it doesn’t scale down as well as C does, or to as many platforms as C does. A lot of this is that C has an unfair advantage from being well established, but an advantage is an advantage .
Re: Cello – High Level C
#16Just my opinion, don't mean to be inflammatory, but if the user has to know and manually manage stack vs heap objects, then I wouldn't call it "High Level" language.
That raises a question, would you call C# a "High Level" language?
Re: Cello – High Level C
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Speaking for myself, I’ve never found C++’s complexity appealing, and it only seems to be getting worse over the last 20 years. True, but that's why we've got Rust these days. (Rust is actually more optimized than C, e.g. it will automatically reshuffle your structs to get rid of excess padding, and reference accesses will automatically take advantage of compiler-checked 'restrict' constraints, thus equalizing perf…
Rust is a compelling alternative to C++ for large scale systems software (browsers, video games, etc) but, as of the last time I checked (~2 months ago) it doesn’t scale down as well as C does, or to as many platforms as C does. A lot of this is that C has an unfair advantage from being well established, but an advantage is an advantage .
I'd say (as a former RTOS lead) that it scales down as well as C, there just aren't as many backends yet. XTensa, AVR, and 8051 are the notable ones missing.
Re: Cello – High Level C
#18Just my opinion, don't mean to be inflammatory, but if the user has to know and manually manage stack vs heap objects, then I wouldn't call it "High Level" language.
Then just allocate everything on the stack and use the optional garbage collector: http://libcello.org/learn/garbage-collection