Carbon: high level programming language that compiles to plain C

[shadowmint]

I wish projects like this wouldn't force you to install their libraries in order to play with them.

Sure, it's just /usr/local, but @#$#@$@# it's annoying when you have to make install on the dependent library before the core application will install.

Use scons. or a makefile. or cmake. Or build a static binary. I don't care; but look at the go source archive for an example of how to do this right.

This isn't a good first touch of a project:

./configure: line 12296: syntax error near unexpected token `CO2,' ./configure: line 12296: `PKG_CHECK_MODULES(CO2, libco2-1.0 >= 0.1.2,,as_fn_error $? "required module missing" "$LINENO" 5)'

hint: you'll notice autoconf isn't in the list above. :P

[055static]

It's is one of life's small pleasures when programs (useful programs) compile fast and with relative simpicity.

If you want to experience this, try www.sigala.it/sandro/ and cutils. There's a links to it on the OP's page. Programs as UNIX filters, written with flex and bison. Beautiful.

I like this OP because he includes a grammar file. If every programmer that tries making his own language did this, the world would be a better place. Did he also include the .l file in the src? I'm too lazy to look. I think they should include those too. It makes the whole thing easier to understand (and modify).

I too get annoyed with having to install the author's own libs. Sometimes these libs are better than the standard ones (e.g. everyone knows C's stdio sucks). If the special libs are fixing something that needs fixing, I'm OK with using them. But nine times out of ten, that's not the case.

For this sort of thing, i.e. C code generation, I still like the LISP's that generate C.

[jryan49]

Reminds me of https://live.gnome.org/Vala

[nnq]

When the first thing I read about a language it on it's description page is "compiles to X" or "runs on Y", this is definitely a sign that the language ha NOTHING INTERESTING TO OFFER whatsoever. Adding insult to injury, underneath is a bulletted list of language features that any language worth it's salt has them! And please... "Named constructors"... WTF?!

(If someone wants to be mean, he could simply compare this feature-wise with one of the Scheme dialects that compile to C...)

[jasim]

Not every language needs to be one of those that changes the way we think about programming. It is perfectly fine to experiment on mundane languages by adding mundane features. Incremental improvement is a good thing and it is too early to just write off this because it seems to be un-interesting.

I'm sure this project was extremely interesting to the author - maybe from a different perspective than yours.

> (If someone wants to be mean, he could simply compare this feature-wise with one of the Scheme dialects that compile to C...)

I'm not being mean here, but if someone really wanted to be..

[Ogre]

The Example link contains, I think, only two things that aren't valid C++. "self." (could be replaced by this-> or simply nothing in C++) and the ["stdio.h"] int printf... syntax for including just one thing.

Two and a half things I guess: the methods of MyObject are accessed by main but not declared public (C++ is private by default)

I don't know if that's good or bad, but it's not very compelling to me.

[jedbrown]

Without a source-level debugger, I see little advantage relative to COS, which is C, but has a more advanced object and type system than Carbon. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1192791 https://github.com/CObjectSystem/COS

[wbhart]

There's less typing for the programmer than in COS as far as I can tell. And productivity is an important improvement.

[bcl]

This is going to need better documentation than a Yacc description if it is going to catch on.

[andrewflnr]

There's example code here, http://home.kpn.nl/pt.kleinhaneveld/carbon/example.html, for what it's worth. Pretty pedestrian, from my perspective.

[michaelfeathers]

It's odd to see compilation to C as a main selling point.

[tomjen3]

Not really. There is a C compiler for every platform worth its salt.

[alexchamberlain]

Some of us rather like C...

[jrajav]

Well, it automatically implies a pretty high baseline of performance and (if it's done right) unmatched portability.

[FraaJad]

While not discouraging the original author, Vala from Gnome has taken this thinking a lot further. Vala is actually quite fun to use even for non-GUI projects. And it doesn't have to depend on GTK libraries to produce working programs.

https://live.gnome.org/Vala/Documentation

[daenney]

This is going to be rather confusing, I actually thought someone accidentally reinvented Carbon, https://developer.apple.com/carbon/.

I realise Apple's Carbon doesn't compile to C but my brain's transderivational search just ignored that fact.

[delinka]

Writing Carbon that calls Carbon. Let's call this act Magnesium because ... fusion.

[fyolnish]

Instead he reinvented something closer to Objective-C.

[mistercow]

Apple's Carbon also isn't a language, but rather an API.

[WalterBright]

Compiling to C puts some significant constraints on your language. For example, C doesn't have COMDAT support, thread local storage, exception handling is limited to setjmp/longjmp, static uplevel function links are a problem, symbolic debug info is going to all look like C, etc.

[tptacek]

I'm not sure I understand how C's lack of high-level exceptions makes a difference for a high-level language that compiles down to C. The high-level language can provide exception support, just like large-scale C packages sometimes do using longjmp.

Similarly, are you really suggesting that C programs can't have thread-local storage?

[ExpiredLink]

It's just ubiquitous.