Coq looks math. It could be considered at most functional programming, while C++(and Java too, by the way) is imperative.
GML is imperative too, making its implementation(or, should I say, translation) easier in C++ than in Coq.
Rusky already said that a modification to the C compiler would possibly work.
Here was I thinking that the flamewar was over. My mistake, sorry.
C/C++ is not a better language
. It is different
. Which is why you have so much trouble accepting Java and C#.
Pointer allocation is called malloc, calloc or new. It already exists in C++ and is widely used.
There is also GC for C++(see Boehm's, for example). However, they are imperfect. Far worse than GCs for GC-designed languages like Java.
Sure, C++ can have lots of things, but with each layer of abstraction you add, the syntax gets uglier and the language more complex. Java does the opposite. It adds those features and *still* has a simpler syntax. Java assumes everybody wants GC and turns out they were right for a HUGE percentage of all cases.
Now, to put this in a way you understand:
Java is a better language
. If you want to make loads of standard libraries in Java for non-GC memory, pointer management, etc., that's fine with me. In fact, I'd love that.
But forcing people to use them(pointers, non-GC memory) in the language
is a completely terrible and bad thing to do.
You can't use the argument "IT'S JUST BETTER WITH C++"
because it's not. Yes, some C++ APIs are better than what Java has. It does not mean that C++ is a better language
If the APIs are duplicated every day with no interoperability, that means they're obviously not standard enough.
Now that I put this out.
The above example is just to prove RetroX that his arguments can be used against him.
I don't consider Java to be absolutely better than C++ the way RetroX seems to think C++ is absolutely better than Java.
I certainly wouldn't care about a non-GC memory/pointer manipulation Java library(JNI-based, I guess).
C++ APIs are available in quantity, but that means fragmentation. Java includes lots of things in the standard library in a (partially successful) attempt to avoid that problem.
For the record, I don't consider Java to be the best language ever. I consider C# to be the best language, although I dislike GUI C# library inconsistent because it's the same problem C++ has
. So the thing I hate most in C# happens to be a "feature" of C++? Neat, huh?
If the APIs aren't used by everyone, that means that they're obviously not good enough. How many people use WinAPI? How many Unix APIs have XLib as a base?
I actually missed that flaw. C++ APIs aren't used by everyone. The "not good enough" is obviously a C++ problem, not a Java problem(since everybody uses java.lang). So you just attacked your own language.
Exactly what are you trying to prove with the WinAPI/Xlib argument?