News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The cost of forsaking C by themihai on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @12:18PM (#12645215)
You forgot to respond to the first one: "Want minimal syntactic sugar and a language that's not prone to feature-of-the-week hipsterism"
Re:The cost of forsaking C by oldmanjay on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @12:26PM (#12645312)
That's a lot of words to declare oneself a masochist

Or if being verbose is desired, do you want to do a job for a computer that you are not suited to do but the computer is?

Re:The cost of forsaking C by atilaneves on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @07:23PM (#12648836)
I didn't forget to respond. I consider minimal syntactic sugar a big, not a feature.
Re:The cost of forsaking C by snakeanus on Thursday October 06, 2016 @09:44AM (#12652356)
The answer to this is Scheme.
Re:The cost of forsaking C by coldtea on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @01:35PM (#12645929)
Why in God's name would I want minimal syntactic sugar?

I want optimal syntactic sugar.

Re:The cost of forsaking C by EpicEng on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @05:51PM (#12648239)
Everyone has a different idea of what 'optimal' means here.
Re:The cost of forsaking C by themihai on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @03:19PM (#12646890)
> I want optimal syntatic sugar

Like Rust or C++ templates? I prefer C syntax over the "optimal" alternative.

Re:The cost of forsaking C by coldtea on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @04:37PM (#12647612)
Why in god's name would Rust or C++ templates be the optimal amount (or optimal syntactic sugar design)?
Re:The cost of forsaking C by themihai on Thursday October 06, 2016 @10:39AM (#12652799)
Well, that's my point! There is no alternative with "optimal syntactic sugar design". You have to choose between something 'minimalistic' (C) and something less minimalistic (i.e. Rust).