printf VS jakt

From my experience, maintaining a standalone/embedded printf library - MISRA is a combination of two things: Common-sense rules, and pain-in-the-ass rules. Example of the latter: Avoiding implementation-defined types like `int` in places where my code doesn't care about what sizeof(int) is.

I was able to accommodate most (?) of the MISRA rules (https://github.com/eyalroz/printf/issues/77), but mine is just a small library, so I don't know how restrictive they would be for a larger codebase.

Note that https://github.com/eyalroz/printf is the fork of mpaland that is being maintained.

Take a look at an embedded focused sprintf like this one and measure: https://github.com/eyalroz/printf

> I have some bad C++ experienced, and I know enough programmers I respect who stick to C over C++.

Do you know such people who work on large software systems, as opposed to, say, micro-controller firmware, or kernel drivers and such?

(Asking as a person who maintains an important(ish) C library for embedded coders: https://github.com/eyalroz/printf)

SerenityOS is doing exactly that:

https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/tree/master/Ladybird

I also like their Jakt programming language:

https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt

Though I'm more enthusiastic about Redox (doing it in Rust):

https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/redox/

It's very opinionated and SerenityOS-focused, but the language Jakt ( https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt ) transpiles to C++, has memory safety and some very neat ideas for readability.

I love Rust, but its model and specifics would make it difficult to learn how to write code in other languages.

For low-level code, I think Carbon may fill that niche in the future. If it doesn't, C++ may be a good candidate once up-to-date books have been written and compilers actually support the modern spec. Classrooms/guides would need to move away from the still-lingering "C++ is C with classes" approach and use the standard library before that can be a reality, but this book[0] by Bjarne Stroustrup himself demonstrates the future C++ _could_ have if all the modern language features become usable.

In business, C++ will still be the domain of ancient clusterfucks compiled by MSVC++ 6 in many areas, similar to how most Java code is still built around Java 8 because that was the most recent stable version for many projects' lifecycle (and Oracle's decision to only ship JRE 8 to consumers doesn't help) and how .NET 4 is still taught in schools because the new and scary dotnet tool doesn't map 1-to-1 with the old way of working. I can't imagine microcontroller toolkits supporting a modern version of _any_ language in the first place.

However, if more people would learn modern C++ (or a replacement, like Carbon), I think this class of programming languages can have the same growth and hype Rust has enjoyed for the past years.

I'm keeping my eye on Carbon and Zig. Google's influence has managed to push Go to the forefront despite its many quirks, and Zig seems to be focused on doing "C, but right" rather than "C++, but right" which so far is looking pretty promising.

It's also fun to see Jakt[1] being developed in real time; I don't think it's a language that will be useful for production software any time soon, but on the other hand it's a language that actually produces binaries reliably (unlike pre-alpha Carbon or pre-release Zig, the latter exposing many problems after switching to a self-hosted compiler).

[0]: https://www.stroustrup.com/tour3.html

[1]: https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt

About php, I have no problem of rewriting whole game for performance reasons once it is done and popular in low level language like https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt but I think for now php is good and sufficient.

Jakt, pretty well designed (lots of ideas stolen from ML/Rust), but very immature

I think this thread might be interesting to the people here. The guy eventually started working on his own safe language, Jakt: https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt