Programming Languages

1354 readers

3 users here now

Hello!

This is the current Lemmy equivalent of https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/.

The content and rules are the same here as they are over there. Taken directly from the /r/ProgrammingLanguages overview:

This community is dedicated to the theory, design and implementation of programming languages.

Be nice to each other. Flame wars and rants are not welcomed. Please also put some effort into your post.

This isn't the right place to ask questions such as "What language should I use for X", "what language should I learn", and "what's your favorite language". Such questions should be posted in /c/learn_programming or /c/programming.

This is the right place for posts like the following:

"Check out this new language I've been working on!"
"Here's a blog post on how I implemented static type checking into this compiler"
"I want to write a compiler, where do I start?"
"How does the Java compiler work? How does it handle forward declarations/imports/targeting multiple platforms/?"
"How should I test my compiler? How are other compilers and interpreters like gcc, Java, and python tested?"
"What are the pros/cons of ?"
"Compare and contrast vs. "
"Confused about the semantics of this language"
"Proceedings from PLDI / OOPSLA / ICFP / "

See /r/ProgrammingLanguages for specific examples

Related online communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Stop Using <> for Generics (soc.me)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

<> is hard to read for humans

Not really. <> is unusually pointy among the brackets and comparisons / bitshifts are used in different places than generics are so I've never confused them.

<> is hard to parse for compilers

I guess? Does this meaningfully increase compilation times?

It makes the uses of brackets confusing and inconsistent

No. A language that uses () for parameter lists, literals and indexing is much more mentally taxing to parse

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Also dropping here the list of contrarian views op listed in the next article:

Language Design: Popular, but Wrong

static members

properties

<> for generics

[] for arrays

Type ident instead of ident: Type

having if-then-else and switch/case and a ternary operator

having both modifiers and annotations

async/await

separate namespaces for methods and fields

method overloading

namespace declarations doubling as imports

special syntax for casting

using cast syntax for things that are not casts

requiring () for methods without parameters

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yea what is wrong with static members? What do they even mean with "[] for arrays"? Why is that bad? Method overloding is bad? why??

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm assuming static members are bad because globals are bad

"[] for arrays" is because they want to reserve it for generics once <> is retired

I think the oveloading thing is about the c/cpp thing where you can define the same function multiple times in the same namespace which yeah sucks imo

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean in c/c++ statics arent really globals, you cant acess the from outsside their scope can you? They just retain their value or am i wrong?

[] for arrays is the thing that has been used forever so why should we not use it annymore?

Overloading is also pretty usefull, overloading class constructors is great. I am not a 40 year experience developer but learning c/c++ i never thought that was so bad.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have no idea about c/c++ statics, does c even have statics? What kind of a scope could statics even have?

I'm very much novice myself and I never liked the idea of trusting the compiler with figuring out the correct overload and neither do I like not being able to tell which version of a function is being called at a glance. Named constructors ftw

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I mean the thing with overloading is that your functions should have some difference in the paraameters they take, if you make 3 functions that have the exact same parameters of course you will not be shure what the compiler does(alötho i dont think that it would compile? But i dont think that i have ever done that)

If you have a foo(int x float y) and a foo( int x ) function and you call it with just a x as parameter you can be shure the compiler will call your second function. If the compiler for some reasson tried to use the first foo it would throw a error because it wants a int and a float and you just gave it one int.

I am shure that

Foo(){ static int x =0;
X +=1; Printf("%d",); }

Foo(); every time foo is called x increments so print will be 1,2,3,4... for every call of foo

Printf("%d",x); <- wont work because x cant be acessed here, it is out of scope.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)