Re: [dev] K, a low-level procedural imperative programming language

From: Troels Henriksen <>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:45:38 +0100

M Farkas-Dyck <> writes:

> Given the comments on alternatives to C lately on dev_AT_ I thought this
> a good time to introduce mine:

The only implementation seems to be written in a pretty atrocious style:

Also - why care about whether or not the grammar is simple to parse if
you're using something like Haskell to implement it, which can easily
handle very context-dependent grammars?

I'm curious about which flaws of C you are trying to fix. Sure, the
syntax is simplified, and maybe the built-in numeric types are a little
saner, but the benefit of such seems low compare to the cost of using
such an obscure language.

If you really want to substantially improve on C, I think adding a more
elaborate type system, with which you can encode more invariants without
run-time cost, is a more interesting approach, which can be seen in
e.g. Rust. This will cost you greatly in increased implementation
complexity, which I think is not to the taste of many on this list.
Most of the complexity in a minimal C compiler will be in the parser,
for example.

\  Troels
/\ Henriksen
Received on Thu Nov 27 2014 - 23:45:38 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Nov 27 2014 - 23:48:09 CET