«

Is anyone working on a successor to C that
will be object oriented but will not be C++?
I want to avoid the problems that come with
templates (which seem to tempt some people)
and which would be acceptable for use on
embedded platforms. Ideally, it would have
exception handling. I ask this because I think,
and almost everyone I speak with about it
agrees, that C++ has gone down the wrong
path in a number of ways. Notice, I'm not
crossposting this to the C++ NG, because
I really am seeking a thoughtful, knowledgeable
response and not a religious flamewar.

Thanks.
PS: Please don't say objective C.

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...

> Is anyone working on a successor to C that
> will be object oriented but will not be C++?
> I want to avoid the problems that come with
> templates (which seem to tempt some people)
> and which would be acceptable for use on
> embedded platforms.

Then you probably want EC++. It's already
widely available on embedded C/C++ compilers.
(Practically all of them use our library,
also available at our web site.)

> Ideally, it would have
> exception handling.

EC++ was speced without exception handling, but
you can turn it on in our library.

> I ask this because I think,
> and almost everyone I speak with about it
> agrees, that C++ has gone down the wrong
> path in a number of ways. Notice, I'm not
> crossposting this to the C++ NG, because
> I really am seeking a thoughtful, knowledgeable
> response and not a religious flamewar.

That's kinda hard to avoid on this topic. FYI,
the C committee did consider such a creature
in the early 1990s. In the end, however, they
backed off from it, mostly due to a lack of
prior art (IMO).

> Thanks.
> PS: Please don't say objective C.

I won't if you won't.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

In article <. com>,
<> wrote:
>Is anyone working on a successor to C that
>will be object oriented but will not be C++?

"Successor" is too strong a word, but yes, someone is working on
an alternative to C. Look at:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/

--
Rouben Rostamian

It appears that the rationale with D is
"more is better". In the comparison given
between D and other languages, D always
has more features. I am not sure this is a
good idea, for one thing it can lead
to bloat certainly in the compiler but
possibly code too, but secondly it increases
the risk of bugs compiler and code,
especially if the number of people
writing the compiler is small.

<> wrote
> Is anyone working on a successor to C that
> will be object oriented but will not be C++?
> I want to avoid the problems that come with
> templates (which seem to tempt some people)
> and which would be acceptable for use on
> embedded platforms. Ideally, it would have
> exception handling. I ask this because I think,
> and almost everyone I speak with about it
> agrees, that C++ has gone down the wrong
> path in a number of ways. Notice, I'm not
> crossposting this to the C++ NG, because
> I really am seeking a thoughtful, knowledgeable
> response and not a religious flamewar.
>
New languages are constantly being invented, and C is a popular base.

Java seems to have most of the characteristics that you are asking for - it
is basically an attempt to produce a cleaner C++. It also has the advantage
of having achieved wide acceptance.

wrote
(in article
<. com>):

> Is anyone working on a successor to C that
> will be object oriented but will not be C++?

There is also a "D" language, which has a set of newsgroups
hosted by Digital Mars, but probably not carried by your normal
news feed. I'm not too familiar with it, and don't know whether
or not it is really OOP or not. I spent about 30 minutes
looking at it once, so the newsgroups over there would be a
better place to find out.

> PS: Please don't say objective C.

Oops. That's what I was thinking, although it is a far cry from
a perfect language, it has been used for a lot of GUI apps on
the Mac platform successfully.

How close to C do you want this language to be in syntax? Does
it even need to be close, or just have the features you want?
At any rate, since this isn't about C per se, but a hoped-for
alternative, comp.programming might be a better place.



--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Randy Howard <> writes:
> wrote
> (in article
> <. com>):
>
>> Is anyone working on a successor to C that
>> will be object oriented but will not be C++?
>
> There is also a "D" language, which has a set of newsgroups
> hosted by Digital Mars, but probably not carried by your normal
> news feed. I'm not too familiar with it, and don't know whether
> or not it is really OOP or not. I spent about 30 minutes
> looking at it once, so the newsgroups over there would be a
> better place to find out.

There have been several languages called "D" (it's an obvious name for
something intended to be a successor to C, which is an obvious thing
to want to create). The one from Digital Mars is probably the best
known at this point.

[snip]

> How close to C do you want this language to be in syntax? Does
> it even need to be close, or just have the features you want?
> At any rate, since this isn't about C per se, but a hoped-for
> alternative, comp.programming might be a better place.

Or comp.lang.misc.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

wrote:
>
> Is anyone working on a successor to C that will be object
> oriented but will not be C++? I want to avoid the problems that
> come with templates (which seem to tempt some people) and which
> would be acceptable for use on embedded platforms. Ideally, it
> would have exception handling. I ask this because I think, and
> almost everyone I speak with about it agrees, that C++ has gone
> down the wrong path in a number of ways. Notice, I'm not
> crossposting this to the C++ NG, because I really am seeking a
> thoughtful, knowledgeable response and not a religious flamewar.

There are and have been several, including Modula and Ada. Ada is
probably the most successful.

--
Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)

"Chuck F. " <> wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone working on a successor to C that will be object
> > oriented but will not be C++?
>
> There are and have been several, including Modula and Ada. Ada is
> probably the most successful.

Those are successors to Pascal, not to C, though.

Richard

Richard Bos wrote:
> "Chuck F. " <> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is anyone working on a successor to C that will be object
>>> oriented but will not be C++?
>>
>> There are and have been several, including Modula and Ada.
>> Ada is probably the most successful.
>
> Those are successors to Pascal, not to C, though.

They are all procedural languages, and actually bear a closer
resemblance to C than does C++, if you except the use of weird
syntax. Ada has managed to graft on object oriented extensions in
a clean manner.

--
Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)