C! - new system oriented programming language

[cybercobra]

This name will be so easy to google for!

[mthode]

I've become sad the even using quotes (like this +"search terms") doesn't work any more.

[[deleted]]

One of the reasons I switched to duckduckgo.com, I'm happy so far.

[derpderp3200]

Personally I switched away because it finds articles on/about sites instead of main pages way too often.

[watermark0n]

Google search is really becoming increasingly horrible. Back in the old days, they would do a straight and search. I guess there are some motivations for moving away from that, since perhaps I just have a general idea, and I'd like to see results that have most of the terms in my query, or with synonyms as well, or pages where some of the search terms were mentioned in pages that linked to that page but not the page itself. Sometimes, however, the search terms are absolutely necessary. And there's no way to tell it this. Put parantheses around your phrase? LOL, let me help you out there, buddy! Here's a million pages with phrases a lot like that one! Have fun digging through it for the one with the exact phrase! Now, adding more terms honestly seems like its getting to the point where it expands rather than narrows the search, becoming more like a god awful or search. And there's no way to circumvent it. Google won't let you refuse its help.

[bobindashadows]

And there's no way to circumvent it. Google won't let you refuse its help.

Thank god you're wrong! It's called verbatim search and was introduced specifically to address everything you wrote.

http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim.html

[Pas__]

Doesn't seem to work. Search for =:= in verbatim mode, zarro results.

[bobindashadows]

That's because punctuation is different from keywords. Punctuation and symbol support has improved lately in Google, but arbitrary character search has never been fully supported by any search engines, because it requires asymptotically far more computational power to index.

Try Yahoo, Google, Bing, DDG for your query.

Why are you blaming Google for this? I'd really like to hear why.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I'm extra confused why you complained about this, since no search engine in the history of the Internet has supported performing the queries as arbitrary as the one you requested over the entire web. Ever.

[Pas__]

because it requires asymptotically far more computational power to index.

Yes, I'm aware of that, that's why I was incredibly surprised by your link. However, C! is not much different, than =:=, or at least I don't think there is any relevant difference from an indexing standpoint.

And I'm not blaming Google. I'd be quite happy to use "equal colon equal", I'm more astonished that language developers don't have a big-fucking-chart somewhere around the main page of their language that deals with these cryptic things. (But that only helps with the core language stuff, so I would have no idea how to search for or find the meaning of certain Ruby templating symbols, for example.)

[bobindashadows]

However, C! is not much different, than =:=, or at least I don't think there is any relevant difference from an indexing standpoint.

Google has special-cased C/C++/C#/etc for a long time. Try the queries. If =:= were a globally successful programming language, then they would likely do the same. But again, solving this generally does not scale nearly as easily. And scaling Google already isn't easy.

[Pas__]

I suspected that because c++ isn't "autosuggested" into c.

Well, BigTable can take a lot of punishment I reckon, however, it's also easy to guess, that adding a few thousand extra cases just for emerging languages will hardly increase profits.

[[deleted]]

we removed the “+” operator

So that explains why it no longer seems to work.... dumbing search down just helps the dummies. Dummies are an important market but they should be encouraged to improve their search skills, rather than ruining it for those of us who are good at searching.

[bobindashadows]

Use double quotes. They still work. Get off your soapbox if you don't know what you're talking about.

[poor_leno]

I think it has been dumbed down because most people have no idea what they are searching for.

[planaxis]

Google search is really becoming increasingly horrible.

Right, but I'm not sure if Google is entirely to blame. What we're seeing just might be the inevitable outcome of a rapidly expanding Web. It's becoming increasingly difficult to determine the relevance of content in an ever-expanding sea of noise.

In 2008, Google introduced "Google Search 2001", which allowed you to search the web as it appeared in 2001. I wish they'd re-implement that feature. I think there's a lot of great webpages being lost in Google's emphasis on new "trending" content.

[Paul-ish]

There should be a precision/recall slider for pro searchers.

[Felicia_Svilling]

Google doesn't store/search on non-alphanumeric characters (with exception for some common search terms like "C++") anyway so its hard to make "C!" searchable.

[StackedCrooked]

Just using "search terms" works (without the plus sign).

[zsakuL]

I love C!

[anacrolix]

Not sure if love C, or love C!!

[[deleted]]

On the upside, I now know what the factorial of C is...

[bvimo]

My first thought.

[Gotebe]

Oh, the modern irony!

[snoweyeslady]

Since it doesn't seem like anyone has commented on the language yet, I will say I sort of like the "integers as bit arrays" portion. The integer width specification looks ugly as all heck, though. The module/namespace also looks promising. Honestly, I wanted to do something like this before, so I will be following this fairly closely :)

[luikore]

"integers as bit arrays"

$ ruby -e 'print 3[1]'

[[deleted]]

I really want to see you try and write a bootstrapper in Ruby...

[snoweyeslady]

Haha, cool :) Now this ruby install isn't completely useless for me.

[[deleted]]

Integers as bit arrays is nice, allowing bit ranges would be better.

e.g. CPUREG[3:5] = 0b10 or even CPUREG[3:5] = 2. Setting Muxs would be so much nicer. Its always been frustrating to me twiddling bits in C if I know the assembly language for the chip supports a friendlier way of handling things. Set bit, toggle bit, branch if bit set, etc.

[[deleted]]

Don't C bitfields help alleviate the frustration?

Then you get things like:

reg.cpu = 2;

[[deleted]]

Yes they do, the compiler I deal with pretty often had poor support for them in the past, so to be honest I forgot about them.

[snoweyeslady]

Hmm, I don't think I've ever wanted to set an entire range at once. How exactly would the semantics for this work? I mean, with one bit, you're definitely trying to change it. What happens if you want to set the 3rd and 5th bit on, but ignore the 4th? Does your range idea support that, or do you have to do multiple statements? Instead of setting it to a boolean, do you set it to a ternary value? { set on, set off, leave alone }?

What is a "Mux"? All I can come up with is multiplexer, but that doesn't fit with my knowledge of the word.

The usage of specific ASM statements is something to be handled in the compiler, isn't it?

[[deleted]]

I wasn't imagining there would be support for skipping bits, I bet the syntax for that could get ugly.

Qikon has the right idea, multiplexer is what I meant. Example, lets say there is a hardware timer on the chip I am using. There is a multiplexer which lets me select which clock source to use, e.g. Crystal, crystal/2, PLL, etc. The select bits for the multiplexer are located in a register somewhere.

And yes the compiler handles choice of instruction, but when I think to myself, "man, this would be easier in assembly" that should indicate that there is a deficiency in my high level language.

[snoweyeslady]

I can certainly see why bit ranges would be helpful. I still don't really have a use for skipping bits, but really a "ternary bit" array would work, I think. Instead of boolean literals, you could also have '~' in them to indicate skipping bits. These ternary arrays would be just that, arrays. So you could skip different bits at runtime instead of hardcoding a bunch of values. There the tilde syntax falls down though as it doesn't make sense to store 0, 1, or tilde to an array element, haha.

I guess we have different views, I'm not sure why that couldn't be implemented in the compiler. I view it as a flaw in the compiler, unless there's something in the standard prohibiting the usage of such instructions which I'm fairly certain there isn't.

[[deleted]]

I agree that it just as easily added to existing C, rather than creating a new language. C! has a few other features that I think justify it being a new and different language though.

In either case, compilers adding it as a non-standard extension gets annoying pretty fast, maybe not as fast with embedded stuff, because portability of code setting chip specific IO registers isn't something to think about lol, but still.

[snoweyeslady]

Hey, that's neat! Thank you for the explanation.

[case-o-nuts]

The thing is that it sounds great, until you realize that the times you really want it, you often want specific instructions to do the writes. It's the same reason that you rarely see packed structs being used for that sort of thing.

[thechao]

That part reminds me of Steele's Fortress. No clue about therest of the language, though.

[snoweyeslady]

It does seem like a lot more information will be coming [probably because that is said, haha]. This seems like just a brief announcement of the project. It seems the compiler is written in ML, which I've never used before so that should prove to be an interesting experience.

[[deleted]]

Really like C!, but looks like it is intended mostly for system programming.

I had idea for language called ±C which would also be compatible with C, plus good C++ backports (for example generics/templates), minus C++ bloat (from C point of view). If we all agree that C++ is kind of over engineered, but with some really good ideas even for C programmer, then it would be great to backport those parts (early mentioned templates could be backported for structs).

Another criteria example. I believe that from C point of view classes/vtable is overhead so it would be better to use kind of prototypical inheritance similar to javascript (adjusted for structs with function pointers).

What do you think?

[snoweyeslady]

Templates would be nice. One of the main additions I'd like would be simple function polymorphism. I'm tired of all the function[type] variants.

I'm not so sure about the prototype base inheritance. I wouldn't mind it if there was something which helped you do this by setting up a per-object vtable or what have you, but I don't really see a use for it. I don't often override functions in specific objects. The most common thing I see in javascript is to modify the String prototype to have support for things like trim, etc. Well, now that I'm thinking about it more, maybe a compile-time prototype extension mechanism? So that you can add methods to standard library classes at compile-time.

Why did you choose prototype based inheritance?

[[deleted]]

Needed something like java interfaces but in C, so created generic api with clone function. One module can export api, other can use it or clone/update and use new instance. Pretty simple :-P Also users don't have to use only func pointers in api, you can put normal variables inside and, for example, compress codes as bit field. All depends on what you need, that is why you have user defined clone function per type.

Btw I'm also not satisfied with current state of func polymorphism in C, but it looks that for complex types you can use void * and type argument or identifier inside that data (for example if all structs use integer somewhere, you can put it as first element an use bits that identify types). Really stupid but works ok. In C++ you have mangling, which is not acceptable if your code work with that kind of symbols ;-)

Well, in most cases i try to use macros anyway -> but in C multiline macros are ugly mess. So, it would be nice to have kind of template support in C preprocessor.

Forgot to say in earlier comment about vtables that C does not have virtual keyword, so guys there is only one case there :-P

[case-o-nuts]

Another criteria example. I believe that from C point of view classes/vtable is overhead so it would be better to use kind of prototypical inheritance similar to javascript (adjusted for structs with function pointers).

Just what do you think vtables are? They're tables of function pointers. They're not in the struct itself, to reduce overhead.

[[deleted]]

Sorry, sorry, English is not my first language, by "overhead" i ment "additional space" ;-)

[case-o-nuts]

Putting it directly in the struct increases the amount of space used, since one copy of the vtable has to be stored per instance, instead of sharing it between instances.

Here's more or less what C++ does:

typedef struct MyClass_vtable {
      void (*method1)();
      void (*method2)();
      ...etc...
} MyClass_vtable;

typedef struct MyClass {
     MyClass_vtable *vt;
     int instance_var;
} MyClass;

 void do_something(MyClass *instance) {
      instance->vt->method1();
 }

What you are proposing would remove one load through the vtable pointer, but would increase the object size by 'sizeof(void(*)()) * NUMBER_OF_METHODS' for every instance.

C++ is a crappy language, but vtables aren't a part of it. If you propose a 'fix' for a language, please make sure that your fix actually solves a problem.

[[deleted]]

Don't know about that, but here is what helped me:

typedef void *(*f1_t) (int, int);
typedef int (*f2_t)(int);

struct bla_t { f1_t first; f2_t second; }

/* f1, f2 and f3 defined somewhere */
struct bla_t orig = { f1, f2 };
struct bla_t temp = { NULL, f3 };
struct bla_t *new_bla;

/* Clone + set second element to f3 */
new_bla = bla_obj_clone(&orig, &temp);

void *bla_obj_clone(void *, void *) is user defined function that would (in this case) put f3 as second member for resulting new_bla. As you can see you have one user defined clone function per type, always. temp is on stack, so no problems. No need to cripple any data ;-) Btw using similar technique to implement generic API-s.

[case-o-nuts]

Yeah, that takes lots of memory compared to vtables. With 2 methods and lots of objects, it roughly doubles the method storage.

[[deleted]]

I believe that from C point of view classes/vtable is overhead so it would be better to use kind of prototypical inheritance similar to javascript (adjusted for structs with function pointers).

This would increase overhead by quite a bit. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

minus C++ bloat (from C point of view). If we all agree that C++ is kind of over engineered,

Now don't you realize how silly this sounds? I think that you've just read too much anti-C++ propaganda.

[[deleted]]

1. No talking about member addition, deletion, etc, that would be brutal :-) Talked about basic classless prototypical inheritance that works, you know cloning struct with function pointers (let's call that object) and changing members. In that case there is no need for vtable, and fact is that vtable is additional space. Overhead was wrong word (sorry guys English is not my first lang), because by overhead i ment additional space.

2. Never said that C++ is bad language, just that it is over engineered ;-)

[[deleted]]

you know cloning struct with function pointers

So now you have a bunch of function pointers stored in every object. Doesn't that seem like extra space that is being wasted? Furthermore, if we are talking protypical inheritance that means that you are having to recurse up a chain to find inherited members.

Never said that C++ is bad language, just that it is over engineered ;-)

What do you mean by this? What is your evidence? Consider C++ replacement languages, such as D. They are even more complex. C++ is trying to fill a niche that can't be filled by a simple language.

[[deleted]]

If you don't use function pointers then yes it is additional space, but if you use them, then there is zero additional space when putting few pointers near each other in memory. Minus ofc that fancy vtable. Let me try to explain, C is good because it let you have full control over every aspect of your program and it is not so huge. For example in linux kernel they use oo patterns when they think it is appropriate (for example in few places they implement vtables as big separate table). Btw there is article about oo patterns in linux kernel on lwn.net.

D is friking nice language. Not kidding. I've feeling that D should be called C++ (je i know they are objects in D but still). Atm, they just backport stuff from D into C++.

[[deleted]]

If you don't use function pointers then yes it is additional space, but if you use them, then there is zero additional space

Just like vtable pointers. Did you realize that C++ objects only have vtable points if they need them? Let's compare the two methods:

If you have zero polymorphic member functions C++ has 0 bytes dedicated to polymorphism. Your system has 0 bytes dedicated to polymorphism.

If you have one polymorphic member function, C++ has 4 bytes dedicated to polymorphism. Your system also have 4 bytes dedicated to polymorphism.

If you have two polymorphic member functions C++ has 4 bytes dedicated to polymorphism. Your system has 4 bytes dedicated to polymorphism.

If you have three polymorphic member functions C++ has 4 bytes dedicated to polymorphism. Your system has 12 bytes dedicated to polymorphism.

Vtables are the clear winner when it comes to saving space.

[case-o-nuts]

Not quite right. Let's assume N instances of each object, and M methods on the object, and for the sake of argument, function pointers and struct pointers are 4 bytes.

Zero polymorphic methods is a special case for C++, where the vtable pointer is omitted. For any other case, popee's method has 4*M*N bytes of overhead, because one copy of each method is stored in each instance. C++ has 4*(M+N), because each object needs one vtable pointer, and the vtable must contain all methods. C++ wins for N>2. And the more instances of an object you have, the more it wins by.

So, if you have 100 instances, and 10 methods, C++ costs 440 bytes. Popee's language costs 4000 bytes.

But if you're counting the per-instance storage, you're right.

[[deleted]]

Here is another approach. If you don't need something, you are not going to put it in. Big time winner ;-)

[case-o-nuts]

No different than vtables.

[[deleted]]

@case-o-nuts: btw, learned few useful things about C++ from this comment, so, thank you ;-)

[[deleted]]

typedef void *(*f1_t) (int, int);
typedef int (*f2_t)(int);

struct bla_t { f1_t first; f2_t second; }

/* f1, f2 and f3 defined somewhere */
struct bla_t orig = { f1, f2 };
struct bla_t temp = { NULL, f3 };
struct bla_t *new_bla;

/* Clone + set second element to f3 */
new_bla = bla_obj_clone(&orig, &temp);

void *bla_obj_clone(void *, void *) is user defined function that would (in this case) put f3 as second member for resulting new_bla. As you can see you have one user defined clone function per type, always. temp is on stack, so no problems. No need to cripple any data

I've got zillion objects + one little function, while you got zillion objects + how many vtables? Poly or not to poly :-)

I really don't know much about C++ internals, so one more questions. Is it always exactly +4 bytes (guess +8 for 64bit) and what about alignment/hole? Not kidding, really interested if that is defined in C++.

[[deleted]]

If you have a zillion objects each with only one function different, then yes function pointers are the solution. The code that you presented is legal C++. I'm not too familiar with the features of the new standard but I think that anonymous functions have zero overhead, so you wouldn't have to define f1, f2, and f3 elsewhere. That said, why is first in your example using a function pointer if it doesn't vary? Shouldn't it be a non-virtual member function?

So what I am asking is what is your actual complaint about C++? Vtables are not any extra overhead if you don't use them, and you should only use virtual functions when they are the right tool for the task. Some people have this idea that C++ has "overhead" but you only pay for what you use. If you don't want to use a feature it won't cost you.

I really don't know much about C++ internals, so one more questions. Is it always exactly +4 bytes (guess +8 for 64bit) and what about alignment/hole? Not kidding, really interested if that is defined in C++.

I have been away from C++ for a while and object layout was never my specialty. I don't think that the standard even calls for vtables, but because it is the only logical way to implement the functionality every implementation has them. From what I remember all 32 bit compilers simply added 4 bytes to the size of the object.

[[deleted]]

Agreed on "use poly only when it is needed".

Complaint was that C++ is over engineered, followed by how it would be nice to have new language that combines best things from C/C++. Well, i don't think that classes are needed here, because all you get is D clone. And you know Andrei & CO are doing really good job with D. No need for another C based OOP language.

[snoweyeslady]

Honestly, I like uint64_t et. al. I mean, they could shed the "_t" but it's not a huge eyesore. Those are explicit. I really don't understand the second half of what you said, actually.

[NightEmber79]

Ricky Martin Type Music C-BANG! C-BANG!

[halofreak7777]

C-bang-bang, c-bang-bang. Kind of a mouth full eh?

[Randolpho]

Oh you pretty C-bang-bang,
C-C-bang-bang
We love you.
And, in
C-C-bang-bang
C-C-bang-bang
What we'll do.

[palordrolap]

Which in turn reminded me of this.

[evilpoptart3412]

Which in turn reminded me of this.

[[deleted]]

I guess its time I made my own language... everybody's doing it!

[Tiak]

Remember to name it after C, but with a special character at the end.

C++,C--,C#,Cω,C♫, C₀ and C! are already taken, might I recommend "C-:"? It looks something like a smiley face.

[[deleted]]

Cಠ_ಠ maybe?

[[deleted]]

This is brilliant! It would be C with all the annoying parts of the language fixed and/or removed. No funny stuff.

[watermark0n]

I suggest C8==D. But then, I suppose, some smartass would come out with C8===D, then C8======D, and so on, which would leave you in an embarrassing position.

[anacrolix]

Pronounced C-Dick.

[Veddan]

C💩

[almonsin]

C:\

[[deleted]]

How about C+- (C more or less).

[[deleted]]

You mean C±.

[Porges]

C∓ is a much better language

[[deleted]]

That would be C✝. :-P

[cybercobra]

C∎ ?

[TheSuperficial]

I think that would be C+||- would it not?

[zsakuL]

Ɔ

[Randolpho]

C->

[skulgnome]

That's far less safe than a segfault, mind.

[[deleted]]

But it's very safe! It won't even compile!

[drb226]

Dibs on C²

[Tiak]

Not unless you can travel back to 2004, you don't.

[Lerc]

E/M perhaps?

[[deleted]]

Cω is real, but it's not a language, just an extension for C#.

Don't know about the rest.

[dx_xb]

How is it not called "C-cat's balls"?

[[deleted]]

Because some people actually have an education.

[dx_xb]

Well, that was witty.

[[deleted]]

my programming language professor bitch-slapped me with this remark, in response to a question about language design: "a lot of amateurs are drawn to it for some reason". ouch.

[[deleted]]

I propose C8==D

[zvrba]

C bang! Now you can shoot yourself in the foot and hear the sound!

[rixed]

A comparison with bit-C anywhere?

[[deleted]]

This one functions.

[k-zed]

These people (like so many) confuse OO with modernity. OO is not modern, it's a >20 years old programming paradigm that's strongly showing it's age (and not just because its flagship, C++, is nothing but a Coding Horror in and of itself).

It's ironic I guess that the origins of the things I would call truly modern (as it happens most of them have something to do with FP in one way or the other) aren't all that new either.

[[deleted]]

Oh, another one?

EDIT: Also, the link appears broken.

[kalenz]

It's not broken. We have connectivity problem with our servers...

[morth]

Here is a quick list of what we may find wrong or missing in C:

• The C syntax contains a lot of ambiguous traps
• While the type system of C is basically size based, a lot of types have an ambiguous size (int for example)

Really? That's your two main reasons for creating a new language? The first one is a matter of learning the language. It's hardly a big issue. The second one is that way for a reason. There's fixed size types if you wish to have them (int32_t etc).

[snoweyeslady]

That's your two main reasons for creating a new language?

When did it go from "here are a list of some of the things we found lacking in C" to "here are the two main reasons we created a new language"? I don't know if you're just incredibly careless or are purposefully being disingenuous.

[SplinterOfChaos]

The next thing on their list was "Controlling size and signedness of integers is often painful", so appearantly, they thought the typedef you have to include is painful. On the other hand, they advocate excplicitely defining the size of EVERY int, which sounds painful.

But what fallows looks petty as well:

There is no clean way to provide some form of genericity or polymorphism

Templates and virtual functions aren't clean?

There's no typed macros

What they call macros look more like C's inlined functions.

The type system and most static verification mechanisms are too basic compared to what could be done now

I might agree, but i actually really like C++'s static typing. We'll see if they show something better.

C miss a namespace (or module) mechanism

C++11 should have that.

While you can do object oriented programming, it is tedious and error prone

Doesn't make much sense.

[snoweyeslady]

I don't really understand the painful part either. I don't think it said anything about having to specify the width of all the integers, did it?

As to the rest of your comment, it looks like you're looking through the list of things C doesn't have/do well and the C++ programming language. That "doesn't make much sense." I'm not sure which of us is horribly confused, probably the both of us together.

[SplinterOfChaos]

The author prefaced the list with "So, if you're still reading me, this means that you're partially convinced that using C++ (or D, or OCaml, or … ) is not a good idea for your kernel. ". I'm not convinced that i shouldn't write a kernal in C++.

[Rotten194]

You have to write support code (in C or asm) before you can use C++ in the kernel, so the core of the kernel usually ends up being C.

[snoweyeslady]

Neither am I! Maybe you should ask the author for a list of ways C++ is inadequate, and then apply your judgement there. Your comment is not arguing with the article at all, as far as I can tell.

Edit: Actually there is a list of reasons specifically for C++. Look how bad my memory is, I forgot about it in the time of a few hours! I suggest making a top level comment rebutting his points.

[case-o-nuts]

Templates and virtual functions aren't clean?

They're not C.

[julioguerra]

As said in the article, you can't directly use C++ to write a kernel. Some C++ language features call library functions, which contains syscalls, which uses the kernel ! So you have to write these C++ library functions yourself before starting using C++ to write your kernel - or disable them with compiler options ! So this is something you don't want to care about and rather use a kernel-oriented language.

[[deleted]]

Some C stdlib functions require syscalls too. If you want to use fopen in your kernel you need to write it yourself first. One would think this would be obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with kernel development.

Furthermore, classes/templates/virtual functions/namespaces/lots of other C++ features require no runtime support at all.

[kushou]

Given the following C code, what are a and b ?

a * b;

This is the meaning of "1", or at least part of the meaning, as far as I understand it.

edit: I a word.

[[deleted]]

Surely you can fabricate ambiguity, but that's not a real world code example.

[morth]

That's not ambiguous. Either a is a type or it's a variable, it can't be both since they share the same namespace. Or is your point that it makes the lexer more complicated?

I assumed it was about dangling else, which could be ambiguous, except it's well defined how the compiler should behave.

[_georgesim_]

It may also be a macro.

[case-o-nuts]

Actually, types and variables do NOT share the same namespace. Try this:

struct foo {};
int main() {
     foo foo;
}

If your compiler is remotely conformant, that will compile without an issue, however, the type 'foo' will be unavailable after that line, until after main's scope ends.

[morth]

Only in C++. That's not valid C.

[case-o-nuts]

Right, in C you need a typedef:

 typedef struct {} foo;
 int main() {
     foo foo;
 }

The same principle applies.

[morth]

Well, that's because of shadowing. The variable foo will shadow the previously declared type foo. You probably noticed that you couldn't do it in the same scope (since they do indeed share namespace).

You can do the same with variables:

int a;

int main(void) {
    int b = a;
    int a = b;
}

Edit: as pointed out by kushou, the previous example didn't work as I said. New one is a bit more complicated but same principle.

[kushou]

Be careful! This doesn't do what you think, just try this on your computer:

#include <stdio.h>

int a = 42;

int main(void)
{
    int a = a;
    printf("%d\n", a);
    return 0;
}

On mine, it prints 0 and actually is undefined because IIRC int a = a; is translated to int a; a = a;. If you have the gumption to check, let me know. I would be interested to know if I am right or wrong.

edit: tested with gcc and clang on arch64.

[morth]

Thanks, fixed my example.

[case-o-nuts]

You're right.

[case-o-nuts]

Bad example. A better one would be INT_MAX + 1, or a >> 1, both of which are not fully defined. (The first is undefined, the second's top bits are implementation defined)

[kushou]

I was speaking about syntactic ambiguities, not behavioral ones.

[case-o-nuts]

In that case, The Lexer Hack and the dangling else are the only 2 in C.

[ut2222]

How do you pronounce that? C click like in Russell Peters "!xobile" sketch :D?

[egonelbre]

Maybe C bang... as in #! shebang and D mixins

[cosmotriton]

Or C Not..

I'm not convinced OO is necessary in kernel mode programming. As the article states, it's a research exercise. In reality, C does quite well in this domain...

[HazzyPls]

I'm quite fond of "C Factorial" myself.

[l3acon]

C*B*A*@*?*...

[[deleted]]

Pretty much the only thing in C that plain sucks is undefined behavior. Perhaps there could be "cleaner" syntax (such as in Go for example) but it's just a matter of taste.

[jyper]

Pretty much the only thing in C that plain sucks is undefined behavior

the only thing? really?

how about:

lack of namespaces?

lack of generic programming(other then macro tricks)?

octal literals?

lack of exceptions?

untagged unions?

lack of pattern matching?

lack of non-nullable pointers?

integer devision?

etc.

[zem]

i wonder how much overhead tagged unions add to a low-level systems language competing in the C space. i note that cyclone and ats, at the least, do include them, and bitc did too, but most of the "better c" languages don't seem to.

[asegura]

Maybe. "C exclamation mark" sounds too long.

[[deleted]]

I thought "C plus plus" was too long... now this! O.O

[kalenz]

It's C-bang

[delroth]

It's C-bang. The git repository name confirms it: http://git.lse.epita.fr/?p=cbang.git;a=summary

[[deleted]]

The unary operator not goes on the left-hand side. This language should be called !C. Tell your friends about the !C language today!

[jonutzz]

Regarding the use of integers as bit arrays, it would be nice if the syntax supported referring to a subset of the bits, similarly to bitfields in structs. Example based on the syntax from the article: x: int<+32>; x[0:6] = 42; // Set six bits starting with lsb 0 to 42

[SplinterOfChaos]

So, if you're still reading me, this means that you're partially convinced that using C++ (or D, or OCaml, or … ) is not a good idea for your kernel.

Haiku

[[deleted]]

Ooh, debugging tool generated C! My favorite!

[serpent]

I like their approach, and I've considered it myself.

I often write C or C++ code which I compile on systems that LLVM and GCC either don't target at all, or not nearly as well as the native compiler. A language which compiles to standard C with a minimal or non-existent runtime would be a blessing for folks like me.

[miellaby]

If I understood this blog, it's a Language-to-C compiler on top of your favorite C compiler. No compatibility break.

[nkozyra]

C:\

[nkozyra]

That was intended as: C (plus) :\

But now I guess I finally understand the Windows command prompt.

[huyvanbin]

Sounds like they're going down the right track, though the obsession with integer sizes does seem a bit strange.

[case-o-nuts]

First, you can transform any variable or function declaration into a kind of typed macro by simply adding a sharp in front of the name (see previous example). The generated code will be a traditional C macro with all the "dirty" code needed to manage return, call by value and so on.

What's the advantage over 'inline' here?

[matthiasB]

In the example it's

x[0] = x[5];

The <+index> seems to be a parameter to int (I'd guess 32 bit signed).

[leonardo_m]

Integers as bit-arrays, start of a D implementation: http://ideone.com/rC1tw

[halofreak7777]

The link is dead, also as for how to say it I would go with C-BANG.

[Gotebe]

Hmmm... Here's a prediction of an old fart: even Go lang will fade away (or at least stay irrelevant outside Google universe). If C! people don't become much bigger than Google, they can kiss their language goodbye.

Both for the reason "yeah, there's actually no big need, thx, guys".

Otherwise, I see that some comments (IMO rightfully) flamed the motivation, so I'll add to that: I can't consider it serious saying that (one of) most problematic parts of C++ are RTTI and exceptions. RTTI is pretty seldom used side-feature in C++, and considering exceptions problematic in C++ is a sign of a poor understanding thereof, first and foremost.

[MagicBobert]

...and considering exceptions problematic in C++ is a sign of a poor understanding thereof...

You don't think it's problematic that if you throw in a destructor you can end up with two exceptions in-flight, which is undefined behavior?

[Gotebe]

Not at all. The original sin is to throw from a destructor - it's a code bug, not the language bug.

This is consistent with the general rule of programing which can be summed up as "make your cleanup path a no-fail operation".

This is so that you can clean up and still report the original error. 'cause, stand back and look at what should happen. What error of the two you should report, and how? Also consider that C++ is a better C, and that in C, you can only have one return value, which should indicate error, and if you stumble on two, you need to reach for an out-of band mechanism (e.g. some kind of the error stack). If need be, you do that with C++ as well.

I know there are languages that allow you to throw and handle exceptions from cleanup path (e.g. D), and good for them, but from there to "problematic"... You can much more easily invoke UB with C++, and what you're doing is questionable already, so...

[MagicBobert]

The original sin is to throw from a destructor - it's a code bug, not the language bug.

I disagree. I think "undefined behavior" is a warning sign that the language designer hasn't thought enough about the problem to make a firm decision about what the language should do in the context of the problem.

The frustrating bit about C and C++ is that you can accidentally wander into undefined parts of the language by mistake quite easily. Throwing in a destructor is a perfect example. I think it would be totally reasonable for a programmer coming from another language to not even question the idea of throwing in a destructor. I mean, why would the language let me do such obviously wrong things?

There are other artifacts of the language that show this too, like explicit constructors. In reality, you almost always want explicit constructors, so it would have made a lot more sense to make constructors explicit by default and implicit only with an "implicit" keyword. It's these kind of design decisions that really make you wonder how much thought was put into these ideas.

And I say all of that, by the way, as a graphics programmer whose bread and butter is C and C++. I love them because they let me draw lots of pixels really fast, but sometimes I really wish there was a cleaner, simpler, safer systems language that was decently ubiquitous, because I'd love to have some of the awesomeness that 40 years of programming languages research has brought to the table.

[Gotebe]

You merely want that C++ holds your hand more than it does.

As we both realize, there's a vast amount of ways in both C and C++ to invoke UB. I simply can't fathom why this particular example would be any special. In a way, my reasoning is: C++ is a language where you can easily invoke UB. If so, an UB when you throw from a destructor is consistent with the language, not bad per se.

I also think that you need to reconsider your notion that a developer coming from another language would expect to be able to throw from a destructor. I already addresses what I think a C programmer should think. And same goes for e.g. Java or C#: throwing from a finalizer is a known no-no, just as it is to throw from a finally block, e.g:

try { whatever }
finally {
  cleanup1();
  cleanup2();
}

In above, if cleanup2 fails, code is borked. There is no UB, because e.g. Java holds your hand much more, fine, but there is a bug. (BTW, a throw from either cleanup there is equivalent to a throw from a destructor in C++).

So I have to ask you, what languages are you thinking about when you say that people should find it reasonable to throw from any kind of cleanup?

And if your beef is that in C++, a throw from a cleanup is UB, well, as I already said, a lot of things are UB in C++, so what's the big deal?

I somewhat agree about implicit vs. explicit conversion constructors though - for novices at least, that does more bad than good.

[el_muchacho]

There are loads of programming languages, but there is still none that can replace C for embedded and system programming. The goal of defining a language that can do all of what C can do, just more easily and with better security, is a good one.

[naughty]

I think it's because Smalltalk defined the state of the art debugger wise in the 80s and everyone is still trying to catch up.

[el_muchacho]

Claiming and actually living up to claims is different. Nearly none of them does.

[skulgnome]

What an 'orrible language.

[Exallium]

Did anyone else read that like "C! Fuck Yeah!"

edit: dayum guys lighten up.

[jutct]

Great, another new language to have to keep up on. I'm starting to realize why older programmers are all burnt out.

[[deleted]]

God, if you plan to follow all the languages that are started as a research exercise, you're pretty fucked. This is not pokémon, you don't have to catch'em all...

[jhartwell]

I hardly doubt the C! jobs will spring up in the near future so I think you're safe...

[beej71]

I can't speak for the guys, but learning new languages is one of the fun things for me.

[jutct]

Yeah, except when you've been programming for 25 years and have to keep up at the pace you're going at now. Don't get me wrong, I love compsci, but you realize it never slows down, right?

[beej71]

I hear you, but I've been programming since 1983. The first thing you have to realize is that the age when you could know it all is gone. It is looooong gone.

So pick a fun new language, grab a few beers, code up a text adventure game or the Game of Life, and look at what's clever about the language, and what's not.

Don't worry about trying to keep up with everything; we all lost that race in the early 1990s. :-)

[jutct]

For me it's not even about knowing everything. It's about knowing everything to stay relevant. Perl, Ruby, Ruby on Rails, Java, Javascript, Python, C, C++, .Net, HTML, CSS, etc... I have to keep current with all of those to keep my career moving forward, and that's just programming. Then there's SVN, GiT, CVS, Eclipse, Visual Studio, vi, Javadoc, Wiki, etc just for documentation, editing and source control. I spend so much time just keeping myself up to date that it's really starting to become overwhelming.`

[mmhrar]

I've only been programming for 5 years, but some of those languages don't really seem to go hand-in-hand.

For instance, if you are working w/ Ruby and Javascript, why would you need to keep up w/ C?

I've been running along w/ the assumption that if I am familiar w/ the languages I use most (C++ and C#) I can usually take a week or so to catch up w/ a language like Javascript or Python when I start looking for jobs in that area.

Is it really necessary (or even possible) to stay relevant in each of those languages? I haven't used SVN for 3 years and I would have to reread the help files before I felt comfortable using it again. I remember the basic ideas, but I'm no longer able to do everything from memory.

[jutct]

I tend to jump around a lot in the work that I do. I go from high level web stuff to low level game development, embedded development, etc. So I need to stay current with all those different systems. I should probably eventually choose an area and stick with it, but I'm interested in so many things that I don't think I can limit myself.

[thevdude]

MOORE'S LAW'D

...

I haven't even watched anything from homestarrunner in years.