List of viable C replacements:. - Carbon. - Odin. - Hare. - D. - Go. - Assembly. - Jai. Forget anything?

List of viable C replacements:
- Carbon
- Odin
- Hare
- D
- Go
- Assembly
- Jai
Forget anything?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Those are C++ replacements.
    None of them targets the C demographic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      except hare

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Out of all this only odin is viable, the other one would be zig.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Zig is in beta

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So what?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so are you

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you're forgetting Rust, but don't worry I'm here to remind you to include it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rust is more of a Java replacement
      Memory manual management is the most important feature, the next is punshing you for any mistake

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Memory manual management
        this is your brain after 10 seconds of Rust

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >List of viable C replacements:
    >Carbon
    Who?
    >Odin
    Who?
    >Hare
    Who?
    >D
    May as well just use Java or C#.
    >Go
    The simplicity C without the utility.
    >Assembly
    https://www.reddit.com/r/programmerhumor
    >Jai
    Who?
    >Forget anything?
    Yeah, a viable C replacement.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Who?
      >Who?
      >Who?
      >Who?
      Not my problem you crawled from under a rock, mongoloid

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If they were viable C replacements I would know about them.
        Next.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>Go
      >The simplicity C without the utility.
      Uneducated swine with no ability to appreciate pearls.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >garbage collected
        Literally DOA.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          see

          >>Go
          >The simplicity C without the utility.
          Uneducated swine with no ability to appreciate pearls.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            >garbage collected
            Literally DOA.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're a literal moron.
            >hurr I can write my own handrolled GC in C
            It won't be faster than Go's.
            >durr I don't need a GC in C, I'll just put everything on the stack
            If you write the same style in Go, Go automatically puts the variables in the stack via escape analysis so GC never runs.
            >GC is bad! because... it just is! okay!?
            see

            >>Go
            >The simplicity C without the utility.
            Uneducated swine with no ability to appreciate pearls.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            meant for

            see [...]

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you're pitching Go as a C/++ replacement it cannot have a garbage collector.
            >BUT GO'S GARBAGE COLLECTOR IS LITERALLY PERFECT
            Irrelevant. No garbage collector can beat manual memory management on performance and efficiency.
            >BUT MANUAL MEMORY MANAGEMENT IS LE BAAAAAAAADDDD
            Maybe you're right in the vast majority of use cases, but in the rare ones you aren't, you'll have to use C/++.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not pitching anything, I'm just calling you a moron because you said Go has no utility.

            But for the sake of continuing this pointless argument:
            >No garbage collector can beat manual memory management on performance and efficiency.
            That's just truism, as you can always write the exact same GC as Go's, but manually in C.
            On the other hand, no C-style call stack can beat manual register & branch management on performance and efficiency either. Does that mean that C is not a suitable replacement for assembly?
            >Maybe you're right in the vast majority of use cases, but in the rare ones you aren't, you'll have to use C/++.
            Why settle? If the cases are so rare, I'll just use assembly. After all, speed and efficiency beats everything else, right?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not pitching anything
            So your a homosexual who didn't read the thread.
            >That's just truism, as you can always write the exact same GC as Go's, but manually in C.
            I never suggested writing a GC. You do understand the difference between manual memory management and garbage collection, do you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >On the other hand, no C-style call stack can beat manual register & branch management on performance and efficiency either.
            It's always possible to do better writing asm than anything else; it's literally the lowest level of ordinary software (other than directly fricking around with machine code, and that's MISERABLE). But it's pretty horrible to write substantial amounts of code in asm, and languages like C were made so that people didn't have to write tens of thousands of lines of asm.
            Modern C compilers generate very good code. It's become difficult to beat them unless you do evil tricks like repurposing the stack-related registers as general registers (a trick that gets very exciting with multiple levels of interrupts about). The additional grief of working at the level of asm isn't usually worth the extra effort it takes (and if you have a good safe trick the compiler doesn't know, it can probably be taught it).

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can't replace C unless your compiler runs in 16KB of RAM and your language is identical to C

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So either Lisp or Forth.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Jai
    Get back to work Jon, don't make me link the soulja boy video

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hare

    also no,
    none of these is a viable replacement for C

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Assembly
    Oh wait you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
    Assembly... is what people write C to try to avoid.

    Replacing C is exceptionally difficult and expensive because of the sheer quantity of existing code. Carbon, Odin, Hare and Jai are nowhere. D is almost nowhere.
    Go has reached the point of having its own niche, but it's really designed for that sort of niche. (Happens to be a big one because of the size of Google, but there you go.) It's not going to replace C. It's more of a competitor to Java and C# but not really.
    If you want a more serious competitor, try Zig, but it's got a hard time going up against the existing software base. Rust is making more inroads, but more against C++ and especially C# (Java's harder to displace as it is faster and has a more conservative multi-organization mindset).
    There's nothing really hitting at the core of C's niche: small embedded systems.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >small embedded systems
      Basically C, Zig, or Forth. Everything else is bloated. There's nothing else that could even hope to fit in 4k of ROM.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There's nothing else that could even hope to fit in 4k of ROM.
        There used to be other languages that worked at that level, but they got stomped out by C. It's a shame; I liked Pascal, though it had a few really wonky parts.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pascal was an academic nightmare, the definition of malicious overengineering, so bloated that nobody could afford the compilers because they used too many disks

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hare
    is a pile of shit that doesn't even work on windows.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NOW i am interested.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    c++, it also comes with employment

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Forget anything?
    Yes, the C replacement. It's called Rust.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >better C
      >now your code is leaky even WITHOUT your input
      no, thanks.

      https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=rust

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks, still better than C trash.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >still better than C trash.
          since youre filtered by counting, everything will be better than c (for you), rustroony

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean filtered by counting? C can't count?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nah, rustroons need inbuilts because they cant be trusted with something as trivial as a counter

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Cow<'a,str>
            can any rusttrannies explain wtf this is?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >C replacement
      >somehow worse syntax
      >can't do packed pointers
      You must be joking.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >somehow worse syntax
        theres no such thing as bad syntax in C.
        only skill issue.
        you got all the tools you might need to make your code easily legible (not much, but you dont need more)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >(not much, but you dont need more)
          (theres not many *of those, but you dont need more)

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    LLVM IR

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >assembly is an replacement for C

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      C was necessary when there were thousands of processor architectures, but now there's essentially just one, maybe two if you count """phones""" (MAC)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >implying one would code entire projects in asm
        stale bait

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >List of viable C replacements:
    Whatever makes money and makes sense as a replacement.

    Shit thread.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    None of them.
    There's a very good reason C is so ubiquitous and it's because it hits the optimal point between allowing you to do fricked up things and making thing simpler for the programmer.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not a programmer, but why replace something that has worked well for the past decades? Is there something wrong with C to necessitate a replacement of it?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *