The Ultimate Programming Language!

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

I was thinking something along the lines of:

Code Select Expand


class MyClass extends GarbageCollected {
...
}


Then you need to implement multiple inheritance which is icky.

Not if it's done right.

[Kp]

Btw, I think having all user variables *not* stored on the stack may be a good idea for a language... especially not arrays...

Why?  Extremely short life arrays are much better on the stack, and if you're concerned about buffer overflows then:

1) You need a better programmer.
2) You could design the language to automatically check all load/stores to some/all arrays and abort on overflow.  This is a performance hit, and it's not backward compatible with some C wizardry, so it isn't done in C/C++.  Java does it, which is one reason it's such a nuisance to be clever with pointers.

[MyndFyre]

I was thinking something along the lines of:

Code Select Expand


class MyClass extends GarbageCollected {
...
}


Then you need to implement multiple inheritance which is icky.

Not if it's done right.

For example, instead of "extends", try "implements".  Interfaces are a good thing. 

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Ah...how about automatic boundschecked arrays?

[Kp]

Ah...how about automatic boundschecked arrays?

Isn't that what I said?   Anyway, I'd suggest making that optional too (but maybe default to on).  I've occasionally found use for using "zero-length" arrays to alias other data types (especially variable length data that immediately follows a structure in memory), and bounds checking would ruin that.