It looks like `new` instead of `malloc` and, what, `object`? But `printBox` takes object as an argument instead of binding it to `this` or `self` etc, so yeah, what's the point of this? Go, Rust and D exist, y'know.
> Let's see what we can achieve by reworking C syntax ..
Without a shred of specification, only code: I predict, absolutely not a damn thing.
If code is your specification, then every time you type "git commit" you're changing the specification.
On the plus side, your code always implements the specification 100%, at all times.
The public and private stuff is irksome. Make one of them default. Have a way to declare that all names in a region of a file are public or private so that programmers don't have to repeat themselves.
private: // default: can be omitted
void helper_function_a(foo *f) { ... }
void helper_function_b(foo *f) { ... }
public:
int api_function(...) { ... }Looking at the examples, not sufficiently different from C to be interesting, imo. Also, go?
Edit; Adding a bit more; when I think of a C like language I'd like to have, I'd like exceptions (naive impl with setjmp longjmp for example), and Java like "everything's a pointer, all allocation on the heap". And reference counting gc. I don't think anyone else would like this :)
These sort of announcements should include language similar to Linux's:
I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) ...
What is changed? Mostly added object-orientation? How is this different from an early version of C++?
I find the remarks a bit discouraging. It is not a bad exercise. It is quite creative as well. I had a look at nymph_compiler.c. Without using a lexer/parser generator, it is a bit hard to guarantee much about what it will be doing, or even to produce BNF specifications. But then again, I think they also abandoned bison for gcc, and started hand-coding the parser. Maybe the bison approach is also naive in its own way:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2546...
"A hand-written recursive-descent C++ parser has replaced the YACC-derived C++ parser from previous GCC releases."
"GCC switched to hand-written parsing because error messages are more meaningful when using recursive descent techniques. Also, C++ is becoming such a (syntactically) complex language to parse that using parser generators is not worthwhile for it."
It is strange, because the more complex the language, the more I would expect that they would move to lexer/parser generator tools, while it seems to be exactly the other way around.
I think what we really need is a more accessible process for proposing features for C. The difficult part will be balancing this with keeping C a small, focused language.
If anyone wants to take a look at a solid attempt at a better C, take a look at Clay.
This would be more interesting if the goals section of the readme had content...
Looks like C+.
Why?
"nymph" really?
It seems like the compiler allocates memory a lot, and is very optimistic in assuming a) the allocation will succeed and b) strings won't exceed 999 characters plus a null terminator.
https://github.com/roecrew/nymph/blob/master/nymph/example/n...