91–100 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nim also uses 'var' and 'let' for mutability. I like it as well.
knowing neither of these languages i’d rather it be labeled something more clear as neither one of those screams immutable to me. the immutable variant should use the ‘const’ keyword instead.
I'm probably just biased, but to me the problem with modern C++ is its complexity. The mental model of the language, its syntax, and the amount of history / number of interfaces a programmer needs to be familiar with to be productive are all too large. Rust isn't any more complex, but it's not radically simpler either. Carbon doesn't look like it solves this problem. It would seem that creating a language that is exp…
I'm probably just biased, but to me the problem with modern C++ is its complexity. The mental model of the language, its syntax, and the amount of history / number of interfaces a programmer needs to be familiar with to be productive are all too large. Rust isn't any more complex, but it's not radically simpler either. Carbon doesn't look like it solves this problem. It would seem that creating a language that is exp…
The Github Page[1] says this: "The best way to address these problems is to avoid inheriting the legacy of C or C++ directly, and instead start with solid language foundations like modern generics system, modular code organization, and consistent, simple syntax."
Seven years ago someone at Google estimated that there was 2 Billion lines of code in production to support Google Services [1]. Given this was seven years ago the number is probably much higher now and a large chunk of it is C++. Clearly any replacement language for C++ has to seamlessly (as primary design goal at least) consume and update this gigantic C++ code base. Nobody is rewriting all of that from scratch. Th…
I'm jumping into this a few hours late, but nobody has actually straight up asked the real question: Why try to compete with Rust while not really being a better Rust? The linked article generally defines a language that is more of the same, while Google is throwing Go under the bus to make it happen. The number of current and former Google employees that transitioned from being Gophers to being Rustaceans that I kno…
How to make your replacement for a C language Google-able: name it after an API for a C language: Carbon was one of two primary C-based application programming interfaces (APIs) developed by Apple for the macOS (formerly Mac OS X and OS X) operating system. Compare also keywords or key terms: Carbon will be built on a foundation on modern programming principles, including a generics system, that would remove the need…
Carbon API is so old that this pretty much isn't issue. You have to google explicitely for "Carbon API" for it to show up. Whether even now, "carbon programming" or "carbon code" give results for Carbon language - and some other non-c++ libs named Carbon. Even "carbon" by itself gives me some Carbon language links.
Seven years ago someone at Google estimated that there was 2 Billion lines of code in production to support Google Services [1]. Given this was seven years ago the number is probably much higher now and a large chunk of it is C++. Clearly any replacement language for C++ has to seamlessly (as primary design goal at least) consume and update this gigantic C++ code base. Nobody is rewriting all of that from scratch. Th…
I'm jumping into this a few hours late, but nobody has actually straight up asked the real question: Why try to compete with Rust while not really being a better Rust? The linked article generally defines a language that is more of the same, while Google is throwing Go under the bus to make it happen. The number of current and former Google employees that transitioned from being Gophers to being Rustaceans that I kno…