News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Show HN: Nymph – A slightly different version of C by FascinatedBox on Saturday December 23, 2017 @04:27PM (#15996339)
This seems all over the place. You're marketing this to, what, people who have experience in C and want a better experience?

Why is there a readme link to download a .zip of the repo? I know how to clone.

Why is there a link to wikipedia's section on object orientation? I know that.

I don't understand the updates section. v3 parser implemented...okay? How is that better? What?

Then this big example which looks a lot like vanilla C. Is this the sum of what Nymph offers?

What I really want to know, and what is absent is:

* What does this give me that ordinary C doesn't?

* What are the longer-term goals of this project?

* Who is this intended for?

* How compatible will this be with ordinary C? Is there an interest in, say, gradual migration if this is to take off? What's the C <=> Nymph interop to look like?

Re:Show HN: Nymph – A slightly different version of C by nymph019283 on Saturday December 23, 2017 @04:32PM (#15996357)
"Why is there a readme link to download a .zip of the repo? I know how to clone."

- New users don't...

"Why is there a link to wikipedia's section on object orientation? I know that."

- Some people don't...

"What does this give me that ordinary C doesn't?"

- Simple Objects and function Overloading (it says this on the readme)

"What are the longer-term goals of this project?"

- Not entirely sure yet.

"Who is this intended for?"

- People who have interests in preprocessors and the C Language.

"How compatible will this be with ordinary C?"

- Very

Re:Show HN: Nymph – A slightly different version of C by Sammi on Saturday December 23, 2017 @05:35PM (#15996637)
Your target audience is c programmers right? Which c programmer knows Object Oriented Programming so poorly that you have to link to the Wikipedia article about it?
Re:Show HN: Nymph – A slightly different version of C by nymph019283 on Saturday December 23, 2017 @05:44PM (#15996683)
It's for reference...