News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The cost of forsaking C. Parent comment

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
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)?
[ Parent | on HN ]
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).
[ Parent | on HN ]