Zimbu

[Iain Buclaw]

On 15 September 2013 21:12, Nick Sabalausky
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:03:04 -0300
> Ary Borenszweig <ary at esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/13 7:51 PM, Justin Whear wrote:
>> > Just ran across this: http://www.zimbu.org/
>> > A language by Bram Moolenaar (original author and maintainer of
>> > vim). The "Why Zimbu?" section on the right side of the homepage has
>> > comparisons to other languages.  D is the last comparison,
>> > suggesting that it meets all the other qualifications but fails on
>> > "It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is
>> > out."
>> >
>> > Note: I'm fine with D not running absolutely everywhere, I only
>> > write it on linux for linux.
>> >
>>
>> I DON'T KNOW why, but I find it SOMEHOW hard or annoying TO READ...
>
> Funny Id noticed THE same thing too } Which IS strange lack OF
> punctuation normally makes things easier TO read doesnt it }
>
> But I imagine you'd probably get used to those things pretty quicky,
> though. It's just syntax, after all. But holding SHIFT all the time may
> be harder to get used to. I've done plenty of all-caps keywords back in
> my BASIC days, and I can't say I miss it - or that I find it in any way
> easier to read.
>
> I don't like the idea of language-enforced style. I do understand the
> rationale, but to me it's just minutia that has no business being
> nanny-supervised.
>
> Zimbu's actually been around for quite some time now. I first came
> across it several years ago when trying to find a modern native systems
> language that wasn't C/C++. I moved on in favor of D because Zumba
> seemed to be in much more of an early experimental state. Looks
> like it's further along now, but not as much as I would have guessed.
> Maybe all the attention on D/Rust/Go already sucked up most potential
> contributors?
>

Well, ZImbu gets a -42 out of 10 for code readability and maintainability. :-)

https://code.google.com/p/zimbu/source/browse/zimbu2c.c


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';