The article claims nobody’s tried a language natively compatible with C++, but that’s the approach that Google’s Carbon is taking: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang
> Note that Carbon is not ready to use
Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
21–30 of 209 posts
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#22I’m not a frontend guy but heard that typescript is already falling off and contentious at this point. Is it truly something that’s going to stay?
A couple of relatively high profile projects stopped using it. Meanwhile across most industries companies use it, I almost never encounter vanilla JS projects these days
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typescript has a lot of momentum on all fronts and is almost certainly the future of Javascript. The big problem is that it still requires transpilation, which can set up all sorts of shitty traps. Not to mention that the Javascript ecosystem in general is a horrendous mess, which Typescript on its own can’t fix.
The future of JavaScript is in the past. Get rid of all the stupid transpilers and frameworks and just use plain JavaScript in the browser.
Yeah once they implement the proposal to add types we will
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#24I’m not a frontend guy but heard that typescript is already falling off and contentious at this point. Is it truly something that’s going to stay?
There a very limited number of high profile, very niche projects that have switched to types via comments to skip transpile time. (IIRC, a super low level part of the Deno engine.) This does not represent the industry moving away from TypeScript.
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#25I wish there was a clarification of the differences between the “Dart plan” and the “TypeScript plan”. If I had to guess I’d say the Dart approach is a whole new language that transpiles to C++ while the TypeScript plan is one that augments the current language with useful additions.
C+++
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#26I’m not a frontend guy but heard that typescript is already falling off and contentious at this point. Is it truly something that’s going to stay?
You heard wrong.
The only way typescript is going away is if JS essentially incorporates it.
The only things people don't like about it is that you need some tooling and a build step.
However, with its popularity, ts is built in to a lot of things, so the tooling usually isn't a big burden (particularly to get started).
And it's viable in a lot of cases these days to forgo the build step and instead use JS with typescript type annotations. (That might be what you heard about. That's really still using typescript, though.)
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#27I’m not a frontend guy but heard that typescript is already falling off and contentious at this point. Is it truly something that’s going to stay?
> heard that typescript is already falling
Don't believe in everything you hear.
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#28The article claims nobody’s tried a language natively compatible with C++, but that’s the approach that Google’s Carbon is taking: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang
No, it says "No one else has tried the TypeScript plan for C++ yet". Which is true; Carbon isn't a compiler/transpiler to C++, it's a whole new language, albeit one with strong C++ interop.
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#29The article claims nobody’s tried a language natively compatible with C++, but that’s the approach that Google’s Carbon is taking: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang
This is also a design goal for swift, afaik…
Re: Cooperative C++ Evolution – Toward a TypeScript for C++
#30Neither TypeScript nor Dart are relevant technologies to people interested in C++. It's weird to refer to these arguably bad web technologies to market an unrelated initiative.
Why is TypeScript a "bad web technology"?
It's not really a "web technology" at all. It's a language which transpiles to standard JavaScript. The only real web-geared parts of TypeScript are the included (optional) DOM typings.