30 Sep
2024
30 Sep
'24
3:09 a.m.
C# addresses some of the things being discussed here. I've used it, I
don't care for it all that much, I prefer straight, not-at-all modern C,
but I think there are probably a few dialects over the years (Objective
C ?) that have addressed some of these desires for a "better C, but not
C++". Do others here have comments on these inspired by C, kind of
C-like, but with a few other computer science components, thrown into
the language machine ?
On 09/29/2024 05:36 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
It doesn't have to be that way, C could be
evolved, I built a very C
like language (to the point that one of my engineers, who hated the
new language on principle, fixed a bug in some diffs that flew by,
he thought he was fixing a bug in C). No pointers, reference counted
garbage collection, pass by value or reference, switch values could be
anything, values, variables, regular expressions, etc.
If I had infinite energy and money, I'd fund a gcc dialect of that C.
Alas, I don't. But C is very fixable.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 09:56:47AM +1000, Rob Pike wrote:
> I'm saying the exact opposite: they are unavoidably unsafe.
>
> -rob
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 8:21???AM Rich Salz <rich.salz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> C and C++ have become non-portable and dangerously insecure, as well as
>>> often very surprising to the point that the US government arguing against
>>> using them.
>>>
>> I thought their main arguments were to use memory-safe languages. Are you
>> saying the C language can be as safe s go, rust, etc., by language design?
>> (I don't think you are, but the sentence I quoted kinda implies that, at
>> least to me.)
>>