151–160 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What C features can you not realistically use from C++?
C11 atomics, C11 threads, variable length arrays, safely reading from an inactive union member, designated array initializers, compound struct literals, implicitly converting a void pointer to a typed one, and the list goes on.
C++ also has it's own designated initializer like syntax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What C features can you not realistically use from C++?
Any language feature added in C99 and later. In GCC and Clang it's quite relaxed since their C++ frontends pull in a couple of modern C features as non-standard C++ extensions, but MSVC has a strict separation between the C++ and C frontend and doesn't allow this sort of 'cross-pollution'. As a quick example, this C99 code block has at least 4 features that don't work in C++: https://github.com/floooh/sokol-samples/b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C11 atomics, C11 threads, variable length arrays, safely reading from an inactive union member, designated array initializers, compound struct literals, implicitly converting a void pointer to a typed one, and the list goes on.
C++ has its own atomics, threads etc. And variable length array's work just fine in C++ in both clang and GCC. C++ also has it's own designated initializer like syntax.
It does indeed, but they are not compatible and at least the C atomics cannot be used from C++.
>C++ also has it's own designated initializer like syntax.
One that is far more limited. This is valid C, but not C++.
struct bar {
int a;
int b;
};
struct bar tmp = {
.b = 0,
.a = 0,
};I really miss Objective-C, and in the world of Swift craziness [1] I'm reminded often of this blog post [2] wondering what would have happened if Apple hadn't encountered Second System Syndrome for its recommended language. (There's a decent argument it encountered it in iOS and macOS too.) [1] https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-evolution/blob/main/propo... -- apologies to the authors, but even as a previous C++ guy,…
Good time to check out ObjFW [1], it's a cross platform ObjC framework that's just really awesome [1] https://git.nil.im/ObjFW/ObjFW
GNUStep is stuck in 1995 sadly.
Someone should vibe code Objective-C 3.0
What features do you think it needs, that wouldn't spoil the "elegance" of the language? I think one good feature would be higher order messaging, in fact there's already a PL paper discussing how it looks like in objective-c [1] which would add FP-like filter/map elegance that all modern languages have. This would go nicely with simpler "JS lambda" style block syntax to make functional-style programming easier in ob…
I don't know if I like what that paper is suggesting, but I will give it a rip.
Someone should vibe code Objective-C 3.0
If it makes Objective C 1.0 with ARC(but none of the swift-alpha Java syntax) and bindings for QT I won't even care it is made by AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it makes Objective C 1.0 with ARC(but none of the swift-alpha Java syntax) and bindings for QT I won't even care it is made by AI.
Can you elaborate on this? I learned Objective-C not long after 2.0 came out so I do not have much perspective on what exactly you'd want. I remember looking at it and thinking it was pretty fragile and boilerplate-y
ARC semantics arguably follow this as you're using the Objective-C syntax for all occurrences of the Object. Reference counting is also great and predictable which is the main reason MRC was used in 1.0 until Apple decided it was too hard and introduced GC only for it to be canned shortly after as someone came up with the ARC solution.
With property syntax sugar, however, you can't tell whether "a.length" is sending a bunch of messages or simply accessing a struct which are two very dissimilar operations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on this? I learned Objective-C not long after 2.0 came out so I do not have much perspective on what exactly you'd want. I remember looking at it and thinking it was pretty fragile and boilerplate-y
The nice thing about Objective-C up to 2.0 was that it was 100% an extension over C and all new semantics were using a new syntax. So you knew that the C code was C and performing like C while the Scheme code was Scheme and performing like Scheme by looking at it. ARC semantics arguably follow this as you're using the Objective-C syntax for all occurrences of the Object. Reference counting is also great and predictab…