var f = fopen("file.txt", "r");
defer fclose(f);
if fread(&ch, 1, 1, f) <= 0 { return -1; }
return 0;
$ cat kekw.zc
include <stdio.h>
fn main() {
var f = fopen("file.txt", "r");
defer fclose(f);
var ch: byte;
if fread(&ch, 1, 1, f) <= 0 { return -1; }
return 0;
}
$ ./zc --emit-c kekw.zc
[zc] Compiling kekw.zc...
$ tail -n 12 out.c
int main()
{
{
__auto_type f = fopen("file.txt", "r");
uint8_t ch;
if ((fread((&ch), 1, 1, f) <= 0)) {
return (-1);
}
return 0;
fclose(f);
}
}> By default, variables are mutable. You can enable Immutable by Default mode using a directive.
> //> immutable-by-default
> var x = 10; > // x = 20; // Error: x is immutable
> var mut y = 10; > y = 20; // OK
Wait, but this means that if I’m reading somebody’s code, I won’t know if variables are mutable or not unless I read the whole file looking for such directive. Imagine if someone even defined custom directives, that doesn’t make it readable.
For some niches the answer is "because the convenience is worth it" (e.g. game jams). But I personally think the error prone option should be opt in for such cases.
Or to be blunt: correctness should not be opt-in. It should be opt-out.
I have considered such a flag for my future language, which I named #explode-randomly-at-runtime ;)
Example:
let integer answer be 42 — this is a constant
set integer temperature be 37.2 — this is a mutable
cst ↦ 123 // a constant is just a trivial map
st ← 29.5 // initial assignment inferring floatOne can perfectly fine write correct programs using mutable variables. It's not a security feature, it's a design decision.
That being said, I agree with you that the author should decide if Zen-C should be either mutable or immutable by default, with special syntax for the other case. As it is now, it's confusing when reading code.
A classic strategy!
They're objecting to the "given", though. They didn't comment either way on what the default should be.
Why should it be configurable? Who benefits from that? If it's to make it so people don't have to type "var mut" then replace that with something shorter!
(Also neither one is more 'correct')
When reading working code, it doesn't matter whether the language mode allows variable reassignment. It only matters when you want to change it. And even then, the compiler will yell at you when you do the wrong thing. Testing it out is probably much faster than searching the codebase for a directive. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Quite easy to make apps with it and GNOME Builder makes it really easy to package it for distribution (creates a proper flatpak environment, no need to make all the boilerplate). It's quite nice to work with, and make stuff happen. Gtk docs and awful deprecation culture (deprecate functions without any real alternative) are still a PITA though.
I am not too familiar with C - is the idea that it's easier to incrementally have some parts of your codebase in this language, with other parts being in regular C?
another is that it only has C runtime requirement, so no weird runtime stuff to impelement if youd say want to run on bare metal..you could output the C code and compile it to your target.
At least for now, generated code shouldn't be considered something you're ever supposed to interact with.
The Beef programming language was used to write Penny's Big Breakaway.
fn main() {
comptime {
var N = 20;
var fib: long[20];
fib[0] = (long)0;
fib[1] = (long)1;
for var i=2; i<N; i+=1 {
fib[i] = fib[i-1] + fib[i-2];
}
printf("// Generated Fibonacci Sequence\n");
printf("var fibs: int[%d] = [", N);
for var i=0; i<N; i+=1 {
printf("%ld", fib[i]);
if (i < N-1) printf(", ");
}
printf("];\n");
}
print "Compile-time generated Fibonacci sequence:\n";
for i in 0..20 {
print f"fib[{i}] = {fibs[i]}\n";
}
}
The Zig equivalent of the above comptime block just be:
const fibs = comptime blk: {
var f: [20]u64 = undefined;
f[0] = 0;
f[1] = 1;
for (2..f.len) |i| {
f[i] = f[i-1] + f[i-2];
}
break :blk f;
};
I'm writing my own programming language that tries "Write like a high-level language, run like C.", but it does not have manual memory management. It has reference counting with lightweight borrowing for performance sensitive parts: https://github.com/thomasmueller/bau-lang
Of course you can always drop to manually written C yourself and it's still a fantastic language to interop with C. And CHICKEN 6 (still pre-release) improves upon that! E.g structs and Unions can be returned/passed directly by/to foreign functions, and the new CRUNCH extension/subset is supposed to compile to something quite a bit closer to handwritten C; there are even people experimenting with it on embedded devices.
The Chicken C API has functions/macros that return values and those that don't return. The former include the fabulous embedded API (crunch is an altogether different beast) which I've used in "mixed language" programming to good effect. In such cases Scheme is rather like the essential "glue" that enables the parts written in other languages to work as a whole.
Of course becoming proficient in Scheme programming takes time and effort. I believe it's true that some brains have an affinity for Lispy languages while others don't. Fortunately, there are many ways to write programs to accomplish a given task.
not an expert either, but you're right about that, it uses cps transformations so that functions never return. there's a nice write up here: https://wiki.call-cc.org/chicken-compilation-process#a-guide...
List of remarks:
> var ints: int[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
> var zeros: [int; 5]; // Zero-initialized
The zero initialized array is not intuitive IMO.
> // Bitfields
If it's deterministically packed.
> Tagged unions
Same, is the memory layout deterministic (and optimized)?
> 2 | 3 => print("Two or Three")
Any reason not to use "2 || 3"?
> Traits
What if I want to remove or override the "trait Drawing for Circle" because the original implementation doesn't fit my constraints? As long as traits are not required to be in a totally different module than the struct I will likely never welcome them in a programming language.
repeat 3 {
try { curl(...) && break }
except { continue }
}
I guess you could easily emulate it with `for x in range(3): ...break`, but `repeat 3: ...break` feels a bit more like that `print("-"*80)` feature but for loops.
for range 5 { ... }It looks like a fun project, but I'm not sure what this adds to the point where people would actually use it over C or just going to Rust.
I guess the point is what is subtracts, instead - answer being the borrow-checker.
There is an entire world in Rust where you never have to touch the borrow-checker or lifetimes at all. You can just clone or move everything, or put everything in an Arc (which is what most other languages are doing anyway). It's very easy to not fight the compiler if you don't want to.
Maybe the real fix for Rust (for people that don't want to care), is just a compiler mode where everything is Arc-by-default?
Borrow checking in Rust isn't sound AFAIK, even after all these years, so some of the problems with designing and implementing lifetimes, region checking, and borrow checking algorithms, aren't trivial.
In fact why not simply write rust to begin with?
I mean, I could have used the C stack as the VM's stack but then you have to worry about blowing up the stack, not having access (without a bunch of hackery, looking at you scheme people) to the values on the stack for GC and whatnot and, I imagine, all the other things you have issues with but it's not needed at all, just make your own (or, you know, tail call) and pretend the C one doesn't exist.
And I've started on another VM which does the traditional stack thing but it's constrained (by the spec) to have a maximum stack depth so isn't too much trouble.