oh VS circle

I think an extensible shell like oh shell would be something I would prefer. Though it should not need closures on heap to extend (which is ridolous slow on arithmetic) and generate the data types at compilation time.

> Is there a reason we aren’t using a shell with a proper programming language for scripting?

Mostly because the people who want to introduce a "programming language" into the shell don't prioritize being a shell.

Check out the "Oh" shell for contrast. This is what a programming language looks like when you force it to conform to being a shell first priority.

https://github.com/michaelmacinnis/oh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1m-WEZz46U

This is "Scheme-like" but has FEXPRs so things can be redefined and evaluation can be controlled.

I love chatting about Kernel :D Here's my most recent post: https://lobste.rs/s/d0hogq/problem_with_macros#c_nozcrm

Thanks for showing me Oh! It really has f-exprs?! I didn't immediately see it in https://github.com/michaelmacinnis/oh/blob/main/doc/manual.m...

Sean Baxter created a front end c++ compiler by himself, using llvm for the back end and the gcc or clang stl. I think it took him a couple of years. https://www.circle-lang.org/. Before this happened I heard a couple of different people claiming that there would never be a totally new compiler as it was too much work.

The real Typescript for C++ is Circle.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

Just like Typescript to JavaScript, the syntax is an evolution of what already exists, not a completely different syntax.

Sean Baxter's Circle [1] is arguably the spiritual successor to MOP.

[1] https://www.circle-lang.org/

Context: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Note that Circle is not an F/OSS compiler as someone pointed out before. This however doesn't make Circle less relevant, because it is actually a testament to show that C++ could have been much better without the claimed breakage. If Circle does provide a number of desirable features and its compiler can be built by a single person, then why shouldn't the committee do the same?

From all wannabe C++ replacements candidates, the only language that is really a TypeScript for C++, is Circle.

For whatever reason, Herb Sutter decided to ignore this language on the presentation.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

This is the only one with the syntax based on C++, incrementally changing the features via #pragma settings.

"Circle Fixes Defects, Makes C++ Language Safer & More Productive"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fxeNqSK2k

"Circle Evolves C++"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZDOGDMNLM

The second someone makes a successor language that seamlessly/directly interops with C++ _AND_ has the level of build/IDE tooling that C++/Rust have, I'm on board.

The closest thing right now is Sean Baxter's "Circle" compiler in "Carbon" mode IMO:

https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Unfortunately, Circle is closed-source and there's no LSP or other tooling to make the authoring experience nice.

I read through the whole of https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/README.md and man, I'm drooling. Awesome work, kudos.