https://github.com/felixangell/krug

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> https://github.com/felixangell/krug
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/

It's still too early to judge, but from the little I've seen of it, it seems nothing more than just a rehash of C with a slightly different syntax.  It wasn't clear from the docs what exactly it brings to the table that isn't already done in C, or any other language.


T

-- 
If it tastes good, it's probably bad for you.

On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> https://github.com/felixangell/krug
>> 
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
>
> It's still too early to judge, but from the little I've seen of it, it seems nothing more than just a rehash of C with a slightly different syntax.  It wasn't clear from the docs what exactly it brings to the table that isn't already done in C, or any other language.
>
>
> T

why do people use this syntax?

if val == someVal

or

while val != someVal

it makes editing the code harder then if you use if(val == someVal).

On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> https://github.com/felixangell/krug
>> 
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
>
> It's still too early to judge, but from the little I've seen of it, it seems nothing more than just a rehash of C with a slightly different syntax.  It wasn't clear from the docs what exactly it brings to the table that isn't already done in C, or any other language.

In a comment from that proggit thread, the creator says, "The language right now isn't the focus but... you can think of it as Go but with generics and no garbage collection."

On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> https://github.com/felixangell/krug
>> 
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
>
> It's still too early to judge, but from the little I've seen of it, it seems nothing more than just a rehash of C with a slightly different syntax.  It wasn't clear from the docs what exactly it brings to the table that isn't already done in C, or any other language.
>
>
> T

Author specified that it's just a hobby project.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:26:03PM +0000, Meta via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > > https://github.com/felixangell/krug
> > > 
> > > https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
> > 
> > It's still too early to judge, but from the little I've seen of it, it seems nothing more than just a rehash of C with a slightly different syntax.  It wasn't clear from the docs what exactly it brings to the table that isn't already done in C, or any other language.
> > 
> > 
> > T
> 
> Author specified that it's just a hobby project.

Fair enough.  But if that's all there is to it, then why bring it up here?  Not that I object, mind you, but it just seemed kinda random, why pick this one hobby project over any other, when there are tons of new languages out there being made almost every day.


T

-- 
The most powerful one-line C program: #include "/dev/tty" -- IOCCC

On 04/26/2018 09:11 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Fair enough.  But if that's all there is to it, then why bring it up
> here?  Not that I object, mind you, but it just seemed kinda random, why
> pick this one hobby project over any other, when there are tons of new
> languages out there being made almost every day.

"compiler written in D"

On 04/26/2018 01:13 PM, arturg wrote:
> 
> why do people use this syntax?
> 
> if val == someVal
> 
> or
> 
> while val != someVal
> 
> it makes editing the code harder then if you use if(val == someVal).

The theory goes:

A. "less syntax => easier to read".
B. "There's no technical need to require it, and everything that can be removed should be removed, thus it should be removed".

Personally, I find the lack of parens gives my brain's visual parser insufficient visual cues to work with, so I always find it harder to read. And regarding "B", I just don't believe in "less is more" - at least not as an immutable, universal truth anyway. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:29:46PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 04/26/2018 01:13 PM, arturg wrote:
> > 
> > why do people use this syntax?
> > 
> > if val == someVal
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > while val != someVal
> > 
> > it makes editing the code harder then if you use if(val == someVal).
> 
> The theory goes:
> 
> A. "less syntax => easier to read".
> B. "There's no technical need to require it, and everything that can
> be removed should be removed, thus it should be removed".
> 
> Personally, I find the lack of parens gives my brain's visual parser insufficient visual cues to work with, so I always find it harder to read.  And regarding "B", I just don't believe in "less is more" - at least not as an immutable, universal truth anyway. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not.

If "less is more" were universally true, we'd be programming in BF instead of D.  :-O  (Since, after all, it's Turing-complete, which is all anybody really needs. :-P)


T

-- 
What do you call optometrist jokes? Vitreous humor.

On 04/26/2018 06:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> 
> If "less is more" were universally true, we'd be programming in BF
> instead of D.  :-O  (Since, after all, it's Turing-complete, which is
> all anybody really needs. :-P)
> 

Yea. Speaking of which, I wish more CS students were taught the the inherent limitations of "Turing-complete" vs (for example) "Big-O". There's faaaar too many people being taught "Turing-complete means it can do anything" which, of course, is complete and total bunk in more (important) ways than one.

I see the same thing in other areas of CS, too, like parser theory. The formal CS material makes it sound as if LR parsing is more or less every bit as powerful as LL (and they often straight-up say so in no uncertain terms), but then they all gloss over the fact that: That's ONLY true for "detecting whether an input does or doesn't match the grammar", which is probably the single most UNIMPORTANT characteristic to consider when ACTUALLY PARSING. Outside of the worthless "does X input satisfy Y grammar: yes or no" bubble, LL-family is vastly more powerful than LR-family, but you'd never know it going by CS texts (and certainly not from those legendary-yet-overrated Dragon texts).