Small, slow-changing, alive programming languages

I'm a beginner programmer, and I love C. I realized that what I love about it is its simplicity and stability. These two things allow me to feel more confident about the code I write and read, and also add a feeling of security, knowing even after a few decades from know I will still be able to write and read good C code.

Even with C being a small language, I still am not confident when using it. I've recently started learning x86 assembly (Programming from the Grounds Up, free pdf), and it was an eye-opening experience. Once I finish that amazing book I will move on to Linkers and Loaders.

But I'm making games and I won't be able to use C all the time, if I want to be competitive. Right know I'm using Python to generate level files from pictures and other stuff, but even though the language is very attractive, it's still HUMONGOUS and horribly fast changing. And the only way I could feel confident about it would be by examining over half of million lines of code of the Python interpreter, and even then it would change over a couple years.

Is there a simple, small, slow-changing, alive programming language that would be more productive/secure, albeit at the cost of freedom and efficiency? I want to be able to learn every single function of its standard library, I want to to be able to learn how it translates into machine code, all in reasonable time frame, and I want that knowledge not to become obsolete after a couple of decades.

What could it be? I know it's not Python, Ruby, Java, or the damn C++. Could it be Rust or something like that?

I know you know much more than me, and are vastly more experienced, and that's why I ask your help.

>Rust
>Simple, small and slow-changing
kek

Dropped.

Common Lisp is an ANSI standard, it doesn't change since 1994. The specification is not short, but it's certainly shorter than something like C++. The open source compilers for Common Lisp are great these days, and there are several implementations to choose from unlike Rust.

There is also Scheme. The specification is very short, and you can stick to R5RS which is probably the most popular version of the language and will never change.

Thanks! I'll check them out. Do you know which one of them has a larger user base?

Common Lisp has a stronger and less scattered community. Scheme users tend to be more on the lone wolf side.

> Common Lisp is an ANSI standard, it doesn't change since 1994.
This isn't "slow-changing", this is "dead". C was revisited in 2011, and even fucking Fortran and Cobol have recent revisions.

It doesn't matter. The language itself is far from dead, even if vendors don't update the standard.

>The language itself is far from dead
So it's hyperdead? Ultramegadead? Maximum overdead?

>Could it be Rust or something like that?
Maybe in 5 years.

Could you suggest any programming language that has a solid standard of equal or smaller size that isn't in tendency of rapid growth, and has a larger user base?

> [Python is] horribly fast changing
Exactly how slow are you?

No, because there isn't. Even Cs standard library just got useful with C11.
Just drop your nitro autism and learn a fast pacing, big language like C++ that maims your soul.

It's alive. By the way, did a smug lisp weenie rape your butt when you were a kid?

Don't worry about these things.
Learn the timeframe the languages work with and pick something that isn't likely to change mid project.

Write good code.
Don't rely too much on the syntax of the language.
Be clear with what you are doing.
Document every function. What happens when the function is run, what is the output, how should it be read etc.

Code I wrote several years ago is not like what I write today.
I can't imagine that I would rely on something I write now in 20 years.
If you want to predict every CPU instruction, don't go into games or desktop applications.
Truth is, it doesn't matter.

It might matter in security applications and embedded systems but modern embedded systems doesn't care either.

Common lisp standard doesn't need update because it got everything right from the start. The standard library doesn't have threads or sockets which would be the only reason to update the standard but there exists de facto libraries for those features that support all of the cl compilers and if somebody made new implementation it would be pretty trivial to add support for the new implementation.

Another stable language is sml.

While most true Lisp programmers are likely to be Pedo-NEETs, no.

Alive means, there are some trivial amounts of software written in it.

It doesn't mean you can write FizzBuzz in it and it also doesn't mean there are like 3 implementations written by a handful of sperglords and another 2 written by some shmucks that rip of universities by claiming that CL is the best for AI work.

>Common lisp standard doesn't need update because it got everything right from the start. The standard library doesn't have threads or sockets which would be the only reason to update the standard
And proper Unicode support. And probably a lot of other things.
>but muh extra library
Gooby plz

>Another dead language is sml.
FTFY

Python:
Python 1.0 - January 1994
Python 1.5 - December 31, 1997
Python 1.6 - September 5, 2000
Python 2.0 - October 16, 2000
Python 2.1 - April 17, 2001
Python 2.2 - December 21, 2001
Python 2.3 - July 29, 2003
Python 2.4 - November 30, 2004
Python 2.5 - September 19, 2006
Python 2.6 - October 1, 2008
Python 2.7 - July 3, 2010
Python 3.0 - December 3, 2008
Python 3.1 - June 27, 2009
Python 3.2 - February 20, 2011
Python 3.3 - September 29, 2012
Python 3.4 - March 16, 2014
Python 3.5 - September 13, 2015
Python 3.6 - December 23, 2016
This is about 1 major update per YEAR, including the one that absolutely fucked up the entire language - a switch from 2.7 to 3.0.
==================================
C:
1. K&R (1978)
2. C89/C90
3. C99
4. C11
This averages at around 1 major change per decade, and of much smaller change.

There are thousands of them. There must be one.

> I can't imagine that I would rely on something I write now in 20 years.
It's not about relying. It's about not seeing your work getting obliterated by time. When I grow up old, I want look back at the code I wrote and run it on an actual computer, not an emulator. Linux was first released in 1991, 25 years ago. GIMP, the program I recently wrote a plugin for in C, was first released in 1995, 21 years ago. And there is ancient code that perfectly works and fulfills its intended purpose. It's beautiful, and that's what I want.

I'm very surprised there isn't a popular language focused on rigid definition and stability out there, with thousands of them out there.

>Even with C being a small language
kek kys for not being able to use the easiest language of all

> The specification is not short, but it's certainly shorter than something like C++
> a solid standard of equal or smaller size
Why exactly do you think CL standard isn't a huge mess? It has fucking CLOS in it, I won't be surprised if it's on par with C++'s.

bash script

Forgot pic

idiot

FUCK

The amount of change from C99 to C11 and from C90 to C99 are on par with cumulative changes in Python at the same time. You just get it more piecemeal.

Considering your low IQ I highly suggest that you should stick to c

> what is calling conventions
> what is ABI
> what is floating-point determinism
> what is linker
> what is position-independent code
> what is for (int i = 4; i < 3; ++i) optimizatoin
> why do you need cast (const char ***) to (const char *)

I know you're baiting, but you don't know shit.

was that supposed to be a list of intimidating shit for a c tard? If so I feel so sorry for you.

looks like you are looking for a small language to accommodate the fact that you are slow and unable to adopt. C is the perfect candidate for you

...

Knowing all those doesn't make you smart, it complicates things, adds more vector for error, debugging massive projects as a result, can be difficult, but it doesn't seem to stop sperglords from arguing over whether or not OOP is superior in every regard.

>the only way I could feel confident about it [using Python] would be by examining over half of million lines of code of the Python interpreter
Why?

Is there a small, rigidly defined scripting language like C to fit my brainlet needs? Or will I need to my make own one?

You are entitled to your opinion. C is a disservice to intelligent programmers. The lack of functionality is inexcusable and c is so primitive that if feels like an insult everytime I program in c.

Bait harder, faggot.

Scheme

It's not a bait, c actually indefinitely IS an insult to a mature brain

I'm concerned by the following:

Are you the one who things things like Function overloading, mixins, lazy evaluations, contract programming, generics are "libraries"?

Languages are not alive

>things things
thinks* things

C is simple because with it you have great amounts of power to program software with a minimal footprint.

It still has its place these days, don't forget that C# and Java has syntax that is similar to C++ which has a syntax similar to C [in things that they both can do], and a good amount of compilers and interpreters such as the Python interpreter was programmed in C.

whilst in the managed languages there is a sacrifice for responsibility and more towards easy-of-programming, the end result is that you have slower software but easier to program.

In my view, it's the constant battle between giving responsibility to the machine to manage things for you [JVM, .NET, etc] to doing things yourself [C, ASM], the latter which allows the user more control over their programs, the end result is great speed though higher difficulty because there is more vector for error.

Get the fuck out of Sup Forums you stupid shills. You have no power here.
>>>/reddit/

Objectives of the shills on Sup Forums:
>Prevent the use of low-level languages
>Prevent the use of functional and logical languages
>Convert you over to use Windows (preferably), just anything other than Linux or TempleOS

>C is simple because with it you have great amounts of power to program software with a minimal footprint.
No, "c is simple" are a collection of buzzwords to deny the fact that c is a languagelet with no features

>It still has its place these days,
Not much. However I admit that C was an upgrade from FORTRAN and the syntax was easier. I actually think Python's syntax are more readable once you get used to it.

Why do all c tards lack IQ severely?

>Prevent the use of low-level languages
C is not low level
>Prevent the use of functional and logical languages
C is not functional
>Convert you over to use Windows
I don't use w*dows
>TempleOS
Fuck off back to you autistic trash

I'm okay with function overloading, as long as there is a well defined function name mangling standard and an ability to relatively easy link these functions from C.
I would like automatic garbage collection, but in a predictable way, that's why I mentioned Rust, it has deterministic memory deallocation.

Generics cannot be compiled, and they can't be used in any library. They could be used to expand them into overloaded functions.

Lazy evaluation takes away control from me, and I don't want that.

I don't know what mixins and contract programming is, I've never done those, but as I said, I'm only a beginner programmer.

>Lazy evaluation takes away control from me,
You haven't learnt to use it

Who cares? Just pick a language you like and use it. Why impose an arbitrary restriction on your choice that literally has no bearing on the final product?

Whilst Python's syntax is more readable, don't forget that it is far slower than C, my point still stands.

at the end of the day, C/Python/ASM/Java/C#/etc are merely TOOLS, they all depend on what your goals are, spergs need to just settle on that, a more interesting debate would be on whether or not to use Java or C# for apps or whether or not to use C or ASM for embedded software.

OP is a slow retard and can't even into C. So I suggested him scheme and he says it's dead. People suggested Python and he says it's too alive.

OP is autistic

I would also be okay with "success by default" policy, where function on any error would throw an exception and if unhandled, resort to specified (by #pragma) or default action (abort/ignore/log to stderr).

The problem is I'm yet to learn how it would be best to pass and handle exceptions.

> You haven't learnt to use it
That's right, I haven't used it, I've read about it and that's pretty much it. I am planning on exploring different languages and learning new concepts slowly, and that's why I made this thread.

Maybe I'm slow and stupid, but I'm persistent, and I will make a game, and whether it will sell or not, I will make another one, and I will make a name for myself eventually.

You should look at Nim. Identical syntax to python and it compiles to C

If you have Christian/altruistic values, you would be inclined to help mentally defficient.

that sounds like a very SJW thing to do

I think it would be a very SJW thing to do if the person you were doing it to was *not* inclined to get help and change his or her views.

I want to learn a different language that would be similar to C and increase my productivity, and wouldn't be dead so I could ask people questions when I would get stuck. I want to change. I do seek help.

Learn Nim

Nim is stillborn.

I don't give a damn, because I can draw the line between religion and helping a leech

Common Lisp
+ seems to have the largest community
/ the standard is very old, so it's either perfect or neglected
- nick-named the C++ of LISPs, has a manual of 1100 pages
Scheme:
+ Way smaller than common Lisp
+ Saw an article advocating it can replace Python in day-to-day scripting
+ Chicken scheme compiles to C
- Has a less well established standard? R5RS, skipped the bulky R6RS, transitioning to R7RS?
Nim:
+ Compiles to C
- New and growing

So Scheme it is then. I'm off to learn about its history, dialects, user base, translators/interpreters/compilers and the language itself.

Thank you so much for helping me. I was surprised there were so few alternatives suggested, given the thousands of programming languages there are. If you have another one, don't hesitate to post it.

> Python is changing too fast
> R5RS/R6RS/R7RS is perfectly ok tho

> implying the magnitude of Python and Scheme are even comparable
> implying I will look at anything else than R5RS
> implying the language isn't so simple I couldn't make an interpreter in C myself

no

Lisp isn't dead.

There is enough development surrounding it so that you can reasonably accomplish any task that you would expect to.

Retarded anons spout off retarded memes. Don't listen to them.

>Absolutely fucked up the entire language

Not really.. Biggest thing I can think of is basically syntactical sugar and the whole string encoding confusion. And the rest is people butthurt cause they can't import their older packages..