why not use c for O2 development?

[efgee]

I propose to the c++ committee that they start fresh with a new language, call it c--   this means no c legacy, no bloat, a modern language that taps into the power of what is here now and on the horizon.
Then all the operating systems be rewritten in this new c-- and we once and for all can move forward at light speed with elegant operating system apis and other higher level languages that can be built with c--

C-- is already taken.  You have to come up with your own name

Go in that respect is interesting. It is moving quickly on the development side, but people are adapting existing libraries based on c/c++ to go instead of writing new go based libraries. I guess they are stuck because the OS's are in c, again. So this is the catch 22 we are in.

That's the point:
A language has zero market acceptance if there is no binding to libraries or code written in C.

I hope that there will be more real go libraries over time.
(as I like the language...)

[Charles Pegge]

If I concentrated on a C translation of Oxygen, and did nothing else, it would probably take about 6 to 9 months. (about 1500 hours). I am gradually gaining in C experience, but I think developing in FB is somewhat easier. The String handling in Basic is a major advantage, so I would like to defer this exercise until  the code stops mutating so much. I also anticipate that a working C emitter will greatly reduce  the length of this task.

Re macro:

The well-disciplined use of macros should not cause any problems. If you like, you can call them templates and in-line functions .

I believe C++ started out as a set of C macros, and these eventually became Classes and other C++ constructs

Charles

[JRS]

C-- is already taken.

Great, another acronym to remember.