"While reading the Rust spec, I can't help but desire a language which is Rust, but with a standard C-style memory model."
Rust with no gc pointers in a single task is very similar , local pointers into the stack or heap ,with no memory movement managed with region analysis ... and even better if you have a small code base which needs C for a tight loop or an old C lib thats expensive to convert than Rust can call C very easily ..Note rust has no issues with C callbacks ( though bugs in the C code are very painfull) Does D fit the bill ? On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:00 AM, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote: > While reading the Rust spec, I can't help but desire a language which is > Rust, but with a standard C-style memory model. > > Do folks know if there is any effort out there which tries to modernize C > constructs and build while keeping not only the C syntax, memory-model, > ABI, and programming conventions, but also the same programmer > responsibility for the memory model details? > > For example, > > C++ to C interface is challenged by exceptions and method-type-overloading > + name-mangling > > Java, C#, D, Vala, Rust, TOM, - have complex runtimes, including ARC or > GC > > I'm thinking of something which is more of a direct C model, but with... > > - typechecked enums > - exhaustive-enum-switch ( and/or exhaustive pattern match ) > - type/module namespaces ( no inheritance! ) > - structured error-returns and compiler-enforced check-or-propagate ( but > not exceptions! ) > - perhaps built on exhaustive switch > - compiler-checked memory-use-contract constructs ( like Rust borrowed > pointers ) > - type-erasure based type-parametrics for void* > - dynamic code generation templates ala tcc / `C > - a structured build/macro system to replace CPP/headers ( toughest thing > here probably ) > - support DSLs, type-metadata-generation, 'Attributes', > - ... in a "standard" language defined cross platform way > - ... without build system complexity > > AFAIK, all of the above can done while still putting out a standard C > library, and is also compatible with directly importing C libraries though > some amount of "library type metadata" generation. This language wouldn't > be type-safe, but it would be much safer than C, and doesn't require > solving "hard problems" in regions/GC/etc/etc. > > Anything like this out there? > > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
