D

[Hans Aberg]

Is it not time to make a new language D drawing on the experiences from C
and C++?

Specifically, such a language should zip out the parts of C that are
problematic and caused ambiguities and problems in C++. For example, the
many implicit type conversions and problems in the C syntax which are
difficult handle in a C++ high level language style. (There is an example
in the Bison manual in the GLR parser section of a C++ language
ambiguity).

Then one would first get a cleaner C core, not having to worry about
upwards compatibility so much anymore. Further this core can be designed
with respect to more modern CPU structures in mind.

The experiences from C++ will tell mainly how to implement statically
computable user definable structures, including some generic programming
then.

To this, one needs a level above the C++ level, handling parallelism,
distributed programming and better handling of dynamic objects (so it
becomes easier to create Java style polymorphic classes), including ones
choice of GC if needed.

On the level below the C level, one can think of a "portable assembler
level" like C-- and/or a byte code level, which can be used as an
intermediate to an assembler level. This level should also provide hooks
to "universal binary standards" like CORBA and Unicode, which C and C++
carefully avoids due to their history.

See you in comp.std.d. :-)

Hans Aberg * Anti-spam: remove "remove." from email address.
* Email: Hans Aberg <re***********@ member.ams.org>
* Home Page: <http://www.math.su.se/~haberg/>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>

[Victor Bazarov]

"Hans Aberg" <re***********@ matematik.su.se > wrote...

Is it not time to make a new language D drawing on the experiences from C
and C++?

There is 'D' already. Search for it on the Web.

Victor

[Ioannis Vranos]

"Hans Aberg" <re***********@ matematik.su.se > wrote in message
news:re******** *************** *****@du130-86.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se. ..

Is it not time to make a new language D drawing on the experiences from C
and C++?
There have been many language attempts named "D".


Specifically, such a language should zip out the parts of C that are
problematic and caused ambiguities and problems in C++. For example, the
many implicit type conversions and problems in the C syntax which are
difficult handle in a C++ high level language style. (There is an example
in the Bison manual in the GLR parser section of a C++ language
ambiguity).

Then one would first get a cleaner C core, not having to worry about
upwards compatibility so much anymore. Further this core can be designed
with respect to more modern CPU structures in mind.

The experiences from C++ will tell mainly how to implement statically
computable user definable structures, including some generic programming
then.

To this, one needs a level above the C++ level, handling parallelism,
distributed programming and better handling of dynamic objects (so it
becomes easier to create Java style polymorphic classes), including ones
choice of GC if needed.

On the level below the C level, one can think of a "portable assembler
level" like C-- and/or a byte code level, which can be used as an
intermediate to an assembler level. This level should also provide hooks
to "universal binary standards" like CORBA and Unicode, which C and C++
carefully avoids due to their history.

There is no need to create a new language which has nothing more to offer
than the existing ones. Also C++ evolution iis based on providing superior
alternatives which you can use in place of the legacy ones.
Take for example exception handling in the place of return value checking.

In essence, what you are telling is to "recreate" a subset of the now
existing C++. Do something better, use the new and superior facilities that
C++ has to offer than the old stuff.


--
Ioannis

* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com
* Alternative URL 1: http://run.to/noicys
* Alternative URL 2: http://www.noicys.cjb.net

[Andrew Edwards]

"Hans Aberg" <re***********@ matematik.su.se > wrote in message
news:re******** *************** *****@du130-86.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se. ..

Is it not time to make a new language D drawing on the experiences from C
and C++?

See for yourself:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d

[Richard Bos]

re***********@m atematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

Is it not time to make a new language D drawing on the experiences from C
and C++?

It has been that time several times now, if the people shouting from the
wings are to be believed. In fact, several such languages exist,
beginning with C++, but somehow none of them has replaced C. Tell you
what, though: you do the drudge work (a couple of years' hard work
should be enough), and we'll tell you whether we like it or not. Now all
you have to do is make sure that you don't create yet another
C-with-classes.

Richard

[Ioannis Vranos]

"Paul Hsieh" <qe*@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@news.sf.sbcgl obal.net...

There is also no way to communicate to the C/C++ faithful here (or other
similar newsgroups) that a more progressive stance on the evolution of the
standard (based on lessons learned from *those* languages) could significantly revitalize the C/C++ languages.

Check this: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/C++0x_keynote.pdf

If you have new ideas why don't you submit them in the committee or at least
at comp.std.c++ ? :-)

Just look at the C99 standard to see where the future of C is. They added
complex numbers to lure away all those hordes of Fortran programmers ...
*sigh*.
Yes i agree with you. C99 is a dead language. Instead of providing complex
and stuff as part of new header files only, they made them built in and with
ugly names!

You'd probably be better off trying to work on Python, Ruby, LUA, or a language of your own creation than trying to motivate anyone here to *improve* the C standard. Nobody cares anymore.

I disagree with you regarding C++!


--
Ioannis

* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com
* Alternative URL 1: http://run.to/noicys
* Alternative URL 2: http://www.noicys.cjb.net

[Alan Balmer]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:41:51 GMT, qe*@pobox.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:

iv*@nothis.ema ils.ru says:

There is no need to create a new language which has nothing more to offer
than the existing ones. Also C++ evolution iis based on providing superior
alternatives which you can use in place of the legacy ones.
"Hans Aberg" <re***********@ matematik.su.se wrote:

>
> See you in comp.std.d. :-)

<snip>There is also no way to communicate to the C/C++ faithful here (or other
similar newsgroups) that a more progressive stance on the evolution of the
standard (based on lessons learned from *those* languages) could significantly
revitalize the C/C++ languages.
I didn't know they needed "revitalizi ng."
Just look at the C99 standard to see where the future of C is. They added
complex numbers to lure away all those hordes of Fortran programmers ...
*sigh*.
Gosh, I didn't even know there was a contest! Do the members of the
standards committee get bonuses if enough programmers use C? Like many
programmers, I use the tool which is best for the job, considering all
relevant factors, and often that's C.
You'd probably be better off trying to work on Python, Ruby, LUA, or a language
of your own creation than trying to motivate anyone here to *improve* the C
standard.

That's what jvr said - there's no need to radically change C if there
are other languages to do the job. And no need to invent another
language if what you need already exists.

It seems that you are advocating that C/C++ evolve into the perfect
programming language. There ain't no such animal.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************* ***********@att .net

[llewelly]

qe*@pobox.com (Paul Hsieh) writes:

iv*@nothis.emai ls.ru says:

There is no need to create a new language which has nothing more to offer
than the existing ones. Also C++ evolution iis based on providing superior
alternatives which you can use in place of the legacy ones.
"Hans Aberg" <re***********@ matematik.su.se wrote:

>
> See you in comp.std.d. :-)

Unforunately, you'll find the above attitude extremely prevalent in this and
the comp.std.c newsgroups. There's a lot of "C is a systems language" and "use
the right tool for the right job" nonsense commonly spouted here.

It makes better sense to use the wrong tool for the job? If you mean
to say that C should be improved to handle new jobs, then say that.

The people who were previously in the position of detesting C and C++ have long
since left and created their own pet languages (Java, Perl, Python, etc.) And
all those who remain here either don't care or don't realize realize that this
has happened.
Or we are happy that new languages have filled needs C and C++ did not
meet well. If you look at the goals of those languages, and
compare them to the goals of C++ (as described in D&E by
Stroustrup) or the goals of C, you will find they aim at very
different areas.

In particular, D&E makes it clear that Stroustrup has always believed
there are places for languages other than C++; he says 'use the
right tool for the right job' many different times in many
different ways.
There is also no way to communicate to the C/C++ faithful here (or other
similar newsgroups) that a more progressive stance on the evolution of the
standard (based on lessons learned from *those* languages) could significantly
revitalize the C/C++ languages.

[snip]

I do not know about the C community, but some of the C++ community is
still smarting from the too fast and too poorly communicated evolution
of the current standard - yes, I do mean the evolution that took
place in the early to mid 1990s, almost a decade ago. For whatever
reason, good information spreads slowly in the C++ community.

[Ioannis Vranos]

"dbtid" <db***@dev-null.us> wrote in message
news:36******** *************** *******@free.te ranews.com...

Then why are you here?

Basically "i am" in c.l.c++.

I see it's true that leopards don't change their stripes, even
after all these years.

Hrrrr (as cats purr).

--
Ioannis

* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com
* Alternative URL 1: http://run.to/noicys
* Alternative URL 2: http://www.noicys.cjb.net

[pete]

Paul Hsieh wrote:

What I am saying is that the C (89, 99 whatever) standard
as it is is severely flawed. Why not at least bring it up to the
level of not being so flawed?

Seems more like a topic for
news:comp.std.c

--
pete