可以非常接近地进行编程硬件：检查。 D 是我所说的 C 的惯用超集。它不支持 C 语法的每一个部分，它的模块系统完全不同，静态数组是 D2 中的值类型，等等。但是，对于 C 语言中的任何构造（即排除预处理器）D 或标准库中有等效的构造。对于任何一段 C 代码（不包括滥用预处理器），都有一个规范的 D 翻译，它看起来大致相同，并且如果您使用相同的编译器后端，则应该生成相同的汇编语言指令。换句话说，每个 C 习惯用法（不包括滥用预处理器）都可以直接转换为 D。
当我想要执行以下操作时，可以以非常高级的方式进行编程：检查。 D 被设计为主要是垃圾收集语言（尽管如果您坚持并且小心不要使用假定 GC 的库/运行时功能，则可以使用手动内存管理）。除此之外，高级编程主要通过模板元编程来实现。 在你逃跑之前，请理解 D 中的模板元编程与 C++ 相比有了很大的改进。在 D 和 C++ 中进行模板元编程就像在 C++ 和 C 中进行面向对象编程一样。在 D 中模板元编程被设计到语言中，而在 C++ 中，有足够的功能，您可以使用聪明的 hackishness 使其几乎无法工作。对于 C++ 与 C 中的面向对象编程也可以这样说。 Phobos 的算法 和 std.range 模块就是很好的例子D 的高级子集。
You're pretty much describing D.
Compiled to machine code: Check. There is an experimental .NET VM implementation, but all three major implementations (DMD, LDC, GDC) compile directly to native code and the language is designed to make native compilation feasible.
Possible to program very close to the hardware: Check. D is what I'd call an idiomatic superset of C. It does not support every piece of C syntax, its module system is completely different, static arrays are value types in D2, etc. However, for any construct in the C language proper (i.e. excluding the preprocessor) there is an equivalent construct in D or the standard library. For any piece of C code (excluding preprocessor abuse) there is a canonical D translation that looks roughly the same and should generate the same assembly language instructions if you're using the same compiler backend. In other words, every C idiom (excluding preprocessor abuse) can be translated to D in a straightforward way.
The reference implementation of D also supports inline ASM, so you can mess with SSE, etc.
Possible to program in a very highlevel-way when I want to: Check. D is designed to be primarily garbage-collected language (though you can use manual memory management if you insist and are careful not to use library/runtime features that assume GC). Other than that, high-level programming is mostly implemented via template metaprogramming. Before you run away, please understand that template metaprogramming in D is greatly improved compared to C++. Doing template metaprogramming in D vs. C++ is like doing object oriented programming in C++ vs. C. In D template metaprogramming is designed into the language, whereas in C++ there are just enough features that you can use clever hackishness to make it barely work. The same could be said for object-oriented programming in C++ vs. C. The std.algorithm and std.range modules of Phobos are good examples of the high-level subset of D.
I'm thinking about this, too, as I'm currently doing a C project and feeling very unproductive, also missing Scala. (I also did a lot of C++ in the Pleistocene...) I may switch to go. D also looks attractive.
Another option, if it makes sense for the problem, is to use C + a scripting language, like Lua or Ruby. It's what Unix+shells and emacs have done forever. You get performance and low-level bit twiddling when you need it and productivity when that's more important.
C++0X, Erlang and maybe Haskell and Go. C++ and Erlang has a strong user base and there is many jobs avaliable with C++0x and Erlang. (I am uncertain how good the C/C++ interop is with Go)
Also C++0X has good Generics support as documented in Type Classes as Objects and Implicits, Oliviera, Moors, Odersky, OOPSLA 2010. See their Figure 12 below:
Something that fits your requirement is C/C++, as you can inline assembly language with regular code. Calling C libraries will be natural :)
Another thing that fits is the HLA implementation of assembly language (wiki article here) - it is assembly with a lot of high level constructs to make things easier (and faster) for beginners to learn (it compiles to "proper" native code).
考虑使用 C 或 C++ 进行最低级别的编程，然后使用 JNI 或 JNA 将其包装在 Scala 库中。在某些情况下，鱼与熊掌兼得。
Think about using C or C++ for the very lowest level programming, and then wrapping that with JNI or JNA in a Scala library. In some cases, you can have your cake and eat it too this way.
发布评论
评论（10）
您几乎描述了 D。
编译为机器代码：检查。有一个实验性的 .NET VM 实现，但所有三个主要实现（DMD、LDC、GDC）都直接编译为本机代码，并且该语言旨在使本机编译可行。
轻松使用 C 库：D 支持 C ABI 和所有 C 类型。几乎您所要做的就是翻译 C 目标文件中的头文件和链接。这个甚至可以部分自动化。
可以非常接近地进行编程硬件：检查。 D 是我所说的 C 的惯用超集。它不支持 C 语法的每一个部分，它的模块系统完全不同，静态数组是 D2 中的值类型，等等。但是，对于 C 语言中的任何构造（即排除预处理器）D 或标准库中有等效的构造。对于任何一段 C 代码（不包括滥用预处理器），都有一个规范的 D 翻译，它看起来大致相同，并且如果您使用相同的编译器后端，则应该生成相同的汇编语言指令。换句话说，每个 C 习惯用法（不包括滥用预处理器）都可以直接转换为 D。
D 的参考实现还支持 内联 ASM，所以你可以搞乱与 SSE 等。
当我想要执行以下操作时，可以以非常高级的方式进行编程：检查。 D 被设计为主要是垃圾收集语言（尽管如果您坚持并且小心不要使用假定 GC 的库/运行时功能，则可以使用手动内存管理）。除此之外，高级编程主要通过模板元编程来实现。 在你逃跑之前，请理解 D 中的模板元编程与 C++ 相比有了很大的改进。在 D 和 C++ 中进行模板元编程就像在 C++ 和 C 中进行面向对象编程一样。在 D 中模板元编程被设计到语言中，而在 C++ 中，有足够的功能，您可以使用聪明的 hackishness 使其几乎无法工作。对于 C++ 与 C 中的面向对象编程也可以这样说。 Phobos 的算法 和 std.range 模块就是很好的例子D 的高级子集。
You're pretty much describing D.
Compiled to machine code: Check. There is an experimental .NET VM implementation, but all three major implementations (DMD, LDC, GDC) compile directly to native code and the language is designed to make native compilation feasible.
Easy usage of C libraries: D supports the C ABI and all C types. Pretty much all you have to do is translate the header file and link in the C object file. This can even be partially automated.
Possible to program very close to the hardware: Check. D is what I'd call an idiomatic superset of C. It does not support every piece of C syntax, its module system is completely different, static arrays are value types in D2, etc. However, for any construct in the C language proper (i.e. excluding the preprocessor) there is an equivalent construct in D or the standard library. For any piece of C code (excluding preprocessor abuse) there is a canonical D translation that looks roughly the same and should generate the same assembly language instructions if you're using the same compiler backend. In other words, every C idiom (excluding preprocessor abuse) can be translated to D in a straightforward way.
The reference implementation of D also supports inline ASM, so you can mess with SSE, etc.
Possible to program in a very highlevel-way when I want to: Check. D is designed to be primarily garbage-collected language (though you can use manual memory management if you insist and are careful not to use library/runtime features that assume GC). Other than that, high-level programming is mostly implemented via template metaprogramming. Before you run away, please understand that template metaprogramming in D is greatly improved compared to C++. Doing template metaprogramming in D vs. C++ is like doing object oriented programming in C++ vs. C. In D template metaprogramming is designed into the language, whereas in C++ there are just enough features that you can use clever hackishness to make it barely work. The same could be said for object-oriented programming in C++ vs. C. The std.algorithm and std.range modules of Phobos are good examples of the high-level subset of D.
以下是一些满足您问题中提到的标准的内容：
Here are some that satisfy the criteria mentioned in your question:
我也在考虑这个问题，因为我目前正在做一个 C 项目，感觉效率很低，而且也想念 Scala。 （我在更新世也做了很多C++...）我可能会转而去。 D看起来也很有吸引力。
如果对问题有意义的话，另一种选择是使用 C+ 脚本语言，例如 Lua 或 Ruby。这就是 Unix+shell 和 emacs 一直以来所做的事情。当您需要时，您可以获得性能和低级的操作，而当这更重要时，您可以获得生产力。
I'm thinking about this, too, as I'm currently doing a C project and feeling very unproductive, also missing Scala. (I also did a lot of C++ in the Pleistocene...) I may switch to go. D also looks attractive.
Another option, if it makes sense for the problem, is to use C + a scripting language, like Lua or Ruby. It's what Unix+shells and emacs have done forever. You get performance and low-level bit twiddling when you need it and productivity when that's more important.
C++0X、Erlang，也许还有 Haskell 和 Go。 C++ 和 Erlang 拥有强大的用户基础，并且 C++0x 和 Erlang 提供了许多工作机会。 （我不确定 C/C++ 与 Go 的互操作性有多好）
C++0X（“cee plus plus oh ex”）是一个不错的选择。它具有 lamda 函数 和其他好东西。
C++0X 演练 TechDays 2010：现代编程C++0x
此外，C++0X 具有良好的泛型支持，如 将类类型作为对象和隐式，Oliviera、Moors、Odersky、OOPSLA 2010。请参阅下面的图 12：
C++0X, Erlang and maybe Haskell and Go. C++ and Erlang has a strong user base and there is many jobs avaliable with C++0x and Erlang. (I am uncertain how good the C/C++ interop is with Go)
C++0X ("cee plus plus oh ex") is a good option. It has lamda functions and other good stuff.
Walktrough of C++0X TechDays 2010: Modern Programming with C++0x
Also C++0X has good Generics support as documented in Type Classes as Objects and Implicits, Oliviera, Moors, Odersky, OOPSLA 2010. See their Figure 12 below:
符合您要求的是 C/C++，因为您可以将汇编语言与常规代码内联。调用 C 库是很自然的:)
另一件合适的事情是 HLA汇编语言的实现（维基文章此处） - 它是包含很多内容的汇编高级结构使初学者学习起来更容易（更快）（它编译为“正确的”本机代码）。
Something that fits your requirement is C/C++, as you can inline assembly language with regular code. Calling C libraries will be natural :)
Another thing that fits is the HLA implementation of assembly language (wiki article here) - it is assembly with a lot of high level constructs to make things easier (and faster) for beginners to learn (it compiles to "proper" native code).
与 D 和 BitC 一样，ooc (http://www.ooc-lang.org/) 有一个许多吸引 Scala（或 Haskell）粉丝的功能。
Like D and BitC, ooc (http://www.ooc-lang.org/) has a lot of features that appeal to a Scala (or Haskell) fan.
根据您的要求，我认为 Nimrod 也是一个有效的候选人。
I think Nimrod is also a valid candidate here based on your requirements.
您应该查看 Go。
You should take a look at Go.
它仍然很新，但请看一下 Vala。它是 GObject 蛋糕上的一层甜蜜的语法糖霜，并编译为纯 C。
它支持闭包和有限类型推断等功能。
It's still very new, but take a look at Vala. It's a sweet layer of syntactic frosting upon the GObject cake and compiled to pure C.
It supports features like closures and limited type inference.
考虑使用 C 或 C++ 进行最低级别的编程，然后使用 JNI 或 JNA 将其包装在 Scala 库中。在某些情况下，鱼与熊掌兼得。
Think about using C or C++ for the very lowest level programming, and then wrapping that with JNI or JNA in a Scala library. In some cases, you can have your cake and eat it too this way.