'Go' is also a pretty C-like advanced C kind of thing. What do Go
writers think of it vs. C, for safety, reliability, clarity of
expression, etc. ?

On 09/29/2024 06:09 PM, Luther Johnson wrote:
> 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@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.)
>>>>
>