From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

In article <10tpt9j$c3i4$1@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 10/05/2026 05:39, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

[snip]
What makes you think that I'd need to write an own language given that
there's a plethora of languages of all kinds and paradigms existing.

So where's the one that works like mine?

I mean, Rust does exactly what you were just describing.

And why are there so many new ones still appearing? Most of them you
will not know about.

Consider the possibility that you may be unique in the world in
possessing the combination of requirements and aesthetic
judgement that makes you feel you need a language like yours.

As for new languages, there are a number of reasons. Most of
them are not particularly relevant here.

At this point, you may consider doing what Keith suggested, and
moving further discussion of your language to comp.lang.misc.
Here, I'll start by cross-posting to that group for you.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 10/05/2026 14:05, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <10tpt9j$c3i4$1@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 10/05/2026 05:39, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

[snip]
What makes you think that I'd need to write an own language given that
there's a plethora of languages of all kinds and paradigms existing.

So where's the one that works like mine?

I mean, Rust does exactly what you were just describing.

Rust could hardly be more different than mine.

And why are there so many new ones still appearing? Most of them you
will not know about.

Consider the possibility that you may be unique in the world in
possessing the combination of requirements and aesthetic
judgement that makes you feel you need a language like yours.

My language fills the same niche that C does.

I don't have much of a problem with the things that C can do, but with
how it does it, its syntax, its ancient baggage, its quirks, its
folklore, its Unix-centric ecosystem, its pointless UBs, its insistence
in working with every oddball processor, its solving every shortcoming
with macros, its adherents who will defend every misfeature to the death...

Maybe the answer is to just create my own language?! I did exactly that,
and didn't to have to deal with C for 10-15 years, but you can't get
away from it because it's everywhere.

It is also frustrating looking at C forums and people thinking they are
too stupid to grasp something when it's language that could have been
better.

As for new languages, there are a number of reasons. Most of
them are not particularly relevant here.

At this point, you may consider doing what Keith suggested, and
moving further discussion of your language to comp.lang.misc.

Sure, a pretty much dead group.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]

I don't have much of a problem with the things that C can do, but with
how it does it, its syntax, its ancient baggage, its quirks, its
folklore, its Unix-centric ecosystem, its pointless UBs, its
insistence in working with every oddball processor, its solving every shortcoming with macros, its adherents who will defend every
misfeature to the death...

You're mostly wrong about that last point. Many of us spend a
great deal of time and effort here *explaining* how C is defined
and how best to use it.

To explain is not to defend. What will it take for you to understand
that?

[...]

It is also frustrating looking at C forums and people thinking they
are too stupid to grasp something when it's language that could have
been better.

(I'm going to assume I parsed that sentence correctly.)

Nobody has said that C couldn't have been better. But it could
hardly have been more successful. As Dennis Ritchie himself said,
"C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success."

[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2