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

161–170 of 521 posts

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

#161

Post by pjmlp »

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.

Use Visual C++ and you will have modules today.

I have cargo today in C++ via NuGET and vcpkg, and what is great about it, I don't have to compile my depedencies from scratch.

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

#162

Post by bialpio »

rvz wrote: post #49
bestouff wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as tired as you by these cosmetic successors. But for my part I think C++ has already been replaced, and to great benefits. I couldn't thank the people building Rust enough.

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.

We may need more time. IIRC, Firefox is incorporating some code written in Rust, and there's also Servo.

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

#163

Post by pjmlp »

zozbot234 wrote: post #31
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…

Isn't this one of the most prominent features in D? Sounds like they're trying for something very much like D, while starting closer to current C++.

D is always rebooting what they want to be, I no longer think they still stand a chance to be relevant in the next decade.

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

#164

Post by [deleted] »

IshKebab wrote: post #152
formerly_proven wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by mihaigalos »

pjmlp wrote: post #157
mihaigalos wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

.. is it new development?

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

#166

Post by pjmlp »

sudosysgen wrote: post #149
zozbot234 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that it's pretty much all about 2. They say explicitly in their FAQ that you should be using Rust, or any other well-established language, if not constrained by the need for deep, complex interop with C++ code bases. They're not positioning this as a "more approachable" alternative to Rust, only as one that sticks closer to existing C/C++ coding patterns.

To be fair, for many many many people there is a requirement for deep, complex interop with C++. Even if you're getting started on a new project being able to easily leverage the C++ ecosystem could make or break it.

Hence why I love C++/CLI, way easier than getting P/Invoke attributes right.

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

#167

Post by joshuamorton »

pjmlp wrote: post #161
fouronnes3 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Use Visual C++ and you will have modules today. I have cargo today in C++ via NuGET and vcpkg, and what is great about it, I don't have to compile my depedencies from scratch.

> I have cargo today in C++ via NuGET and vcpkg, and what is great about it, I don't have to compile my depedencies from scratch.

To be fair, if you're using a language that has a reasonable compilation story, this is only every a concern the first time you compile.

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

#169

Post by pjmlp »

joshuamorton wrote: post #167
pjmlp wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use Visual C++ and you will have modules today. I have cargo today in C++ via NuGET and vcpkg, and what is great about it, I don't have to compile my depedencies from scratch.

> I have cargo today in C++ via NuGET and vcpkg, and what is great about it, I don't have to compile my depedencies from scratch. To be fair, if you're using a language that has a reasonable compilation story, this is only every a concern the first time you compile.

Sure I always need an excuse to go out for lunch.

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

#170

Post by avrionov »

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?

I had the same question as you so I checked. C++ 11 standard was released in 2011 of course. Rust development started in 2006 and Mozilla announced it officially in 2010.
Post reply on HN