Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 521 posts

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#151

Post by gpderetta »

mempko wrote: post #130
usrusr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the seemingly endless list of things that deliberately don't break with the c++ legacy, new syntax is almost the only change left. And if you were about to give c++ a syntax reboot, why wouldn't you look at what successful other modern syntaxes are doing? "c++, but in a syntax for people accustomed to rust instead of in a syntax for people accustomed to C" sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. Your…

The problem with C++ is it keeps getting better. There was a time when Rust was interesting to me but then C++11 came out. Then they kept improving it

Doesn't C++11 precede rust?

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#152

Post by IshKebab »

formerly_proven wrote: post #145
cogman10 wrote: post #21

If you are like me and wondering "What makes carbon different from Rust or Zig? 1. The ability to interoperate with a wide variety of code, such as classes/structs and templates, not just free functions. 2. A willingness to expose the idioms of C++ into Carbon code, and the other way around, when necessary to maximize performance of the interoperability layer. 3. The use of wrappers and generic programming, including…

> In otherwords, what carbon can do that Rust can't do, is take a C++ class with a `foo` method and call that method. Or create a class with a `foo` method and call that method from C++. Probably one of the biggest hurdles to get over in C++ interopt. Most don't do that, instead you'd make a C function binding and struct and move data/invoke functions through that. https://cxx.rs

cxx is great but it isn't anything close to what cogman10 is describing.

It actually can't ever be, because C++ has move constructors and Rust deliberately doesn't, so you can't for example return `std::string` from a Rust function by value.

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#153

Post by mihaigalos »

mempko wrote: post #130
usrusr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the seemingly endless list of things that deliberately don't break with the c++ legacy, new syntax is almost the only change left. And if you were about to give c++ a syntax reboot, why wouldn't you look at what successful other modern syntaxes are doing? "c++, but in a syntax for people accustomed to rust instead of in a syntax for people accustomed to C" sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. Your…

The problem with C++ is it keeps getting better. There was a time when Rust was interesting to me but then C++11 came out. Then they kept improving it

As far as I'm concerned, C++ is there for legacy purposes only.

There are some nice frameworks and tools using it, sure. Yes, you are required to learn it if you are studying CS.

Any serious new development today is done using more modern languages such as Rust (i.e.: the linkerd service mesh proxy [1] for encrypted pod communication in a k8s cluster).

As even the Linux kernel is slowly transitioning to using Rust [2], it's only a matter of time before an inflection point is reached and it goes mainstream (if not already.)

[1] https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd2-proxy

[2] https://hackaday.com/2022/05/17/things-are-getting-rusty-in-...

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#154

Post by grimfang4 »

gpderetta wrote: post #151
mempko wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with C++ is it keeps getting better. There was a time when Rust was interesting to me but then C++11 came out. Then they kept improving it

Doesn't C++11 precede rust?

Almost. C++0x did, but C++11 doesn't and some compilers/IDEs (e.g. VS) didn't implement full support for C++11 for years.

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#156

Post by bialpio »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #78
rvz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still haven't seen a cross-platform production level GUI app written in Rust. All the time, it is C++ these companies use for these apps, especially having millions of users and generating multi-millions or hundreds of millions of dollars.

"I still haven't seen a production level numerical weather prediction app written in Rust. All the time, it is Fortran the government uses for these apps,..." I vacillate as to whether the best response is: "Who cares?" or "give it time"? First, if C++ actually is better for GUI apps, then more power to C++ (do you have some evidence this is the case?). That doesn't mean their aren't other niches to fill for other la…

GP mentioned C++ being replaced by Rust - I'd say that a replacement should be as capable as the thing it replaces, so if that's the claim, then Rust should be at the very least OK for GUI apps. If it's not, then that's also okay, but let's not call it a replacement then. :-)

I'm personally excited to see how all those languages will influence each other!

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#157

Post by pjmlp »

mihaigalos wrote: post #153
mempko wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with C++ is it keeps getting better. There was a time when Rust was interesting to me but then C++11 came out. Then they kept improving it

As far as I'm concerned, C++ is there for legacy purposes only. There are some nice frameworks and tools using it, sure. Yes, you are required to learn it if you are studying CS. Any serious new development today is done using more modern languages such as Rust (i.e.: the linkerd service mesh proxy [1] for encrypted pod communication in a k8s cluster). As even the Linux kernel is slowly transitioning to using Rust [2…

Just learned that LLVM, GCC, CUDA, HPC, HFT and the whole games industry aren't serious new development.

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#158

Post by sudosysgen »

fsloth wrote: post #150
mempko wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with C++ is it keeps getting better. There was a time when Rust was interesting to me but then C++11 came out. Then they kept improving it

Regarding C++. IMHO - it’s not getting intrinsically better. More complex. Easy things become a bit less verbose, but the hardest things remain as hard and the compiler is as unhelpful as before. I agree C++11 and it’s successors are sugaring the language to be a lot nicer but fundamentally nothing has changed. Rust is fundamentally better in it’s compiler warnings (they are actually helpful), and contains specific s…

In my experience compiler error messages have gotten hugely better, except for template issues which are still very verbose. Especially with clang.

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#159

Post by raydev »

mempko wrote: post #130
usrusr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the seemingly endless list of things that deliberately don't break with the c++ legacy, new syntax is almost the only change left. And if you were about to give c++ a syntax reboot, why wouldn't you look at what successful other modern syntaxes are doing? "c++, but in a syntax for people accustomed to rust instead of in a syntax for people accustomed to C" sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. Your…

The problem with C++ is it keeps getting better. There was a time when Rust was interesting to me but then C++11 came out. Then they kept improving it

It's impossible to deny that C++ is improving.

But it's worth investigating what you can do when you aren't tethered to wild inconsistencies and odd behaviors and workarounds because the community is terrified of breaking backcompat.

Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

#160

Post by AnimalMuppet »

fouronnes3 wrote: post #134
mempko wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with C++ is it keeps getting better. There was a time when Rust was interesting to me but then C++11 came out. Then they kept improving it

C++ has virtually zero tooling and the committee is not interested in ever working on that. Comparing CMake to cargo is like comparing fifth century fireworks to the Space Shuttle. I mean we are getting modules that aren't literally copy paste maybe next year.

Given that gunpowder was invented in the 9th century, fifth century fireworks were probably pretty uninteresting...
Post reply on HN