/prog/ - I like C but not its syntax

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-02 12:11

Why hasn't anyone made C that doesn't look like dogshit?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 21:28

javascript is C with a nicer syntax
also look at asmjs.org

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 22:29

>>79
Since Java became popular. I would say expose yourself to industry, but you will eventually. You'll hate it. And then you'll kill yourself.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 22:48

>>82
*presses human liver into your pizza base*

Horrible Industries gone BAD!

*presses eye balls into your can of soup*

Ditto, Jake.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 22:57

I just want a C with first order functions and true closures.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 23:13

>>84
You can do them. It's just not syntactically convenient.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 0:03

>>84
Try Go.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 0:04

>>86
Go is not close to C despite being advertised as so.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 1:01

>>84
That's harder than it sounds. What do you do with closed-over stack space when it's been returned from its owning function, or sent to another thread?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 1:52

>>88
Your anus is harder than it sounds.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 2:45

>>88
Just garbage collect the closure environments and nothing else. What's the problem?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 5:11

>>91
It gets too weird to deal with.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 12:38

>>88
Nice dbus bro xD

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 13:31

>>81
Long time no see, Javashit kike!

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 17:37

https://github.com/eholk/harlan

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 19:13

>>94

.kfc

Dats racist!

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 13:45

I don't know how L++ made getting from Racket to C look so hard.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-24 17:11

How about this syntax?
https://github.com/digego/extempore/blob/master/libs/core/xstring.xtm

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-08 19:52

>>23

Why does the return type come before the function name?

To match the variable declaration syntax. int x; means "this is a variable that stores a variable of type int". int factorial() { ... } means "this is a function that generates a variable of type int". If you just think of functions as a dynamic counterpart to variables, it makes sense.

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 10:20

>>98
Checkem

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 17:54

Just use chicken, it compiles to C
sage

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 18:01

>>100

chicken

What programming language is this?

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 18:08

>>101
https://www.call-cc.org/

Name: Remember: it could be worse 2016-06-09 18:33

<function>
	<function-head>
		<name>minimum</name>
		<return-type>numerical/integer</return-type>
		<parameters>2</parameters>
		<parameter-name>a</parameter-name>
		<parameter-type>numerical/integer</parameter-type>
		<parameter-name>b</parameter-name>
		<parameter-type>numerical/integer</parameter-type>
	</function-head>
	<function-body>
		<condition-statement>
			<condition-test>
				<less>
					<left-operand>
						<variable>a</variable>
					</left-operand>
					<right-operand>
						<variable>b</variable>
					</right-operand>
				</less>
			</condition-test>
			<condition-true>
				<return>
					<variable>a</variable>
				</return>
			</condition-true>
			<condition-false>
				<!-- nop, fall thru --> <!-- thanks, adam -->
			</condition-false>
		</condition-statement>
		<return>
			<variable>b</variable>
		</return>
	</function-body>
</function>

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-10 9:59

>>103
Stahp!!, this is worse than XML lithp!

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-10 14:41

I like /prog/ but not its posters.

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-11 2:17

>>103
Xml makes c the accpetable lisp

Name: Anonymous 2016-06-12 9:00

>>8
cadr

I like C but not its syntax

1 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-02 12:11

81 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 21:28

82 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 22:29

83 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 22:48

84 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 22:57

85 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-05 23:13

86 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 0:03

87 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 0:04

88 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 1:01

89 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 1:52

90 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 2:45

91 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 5:11

92 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 12:38

93 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-06 13:31

94 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 17:37

95 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 19:13

96 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 13:45

97 Name: Anonymous 2014-12-24 17:11

98 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-08 19:52

99 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 10:20

100 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 17:54

101 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 18:01

102 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-09 18:08

103 Name: Remember: it could be worse 2016-06-09 18:33

104 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-10 9:59

105 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-10 14:41

106 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-11 2:17

107 Name: Anonymous 2016-06-12 9:00