A reasonable test of interop would be converting boost to carbon. Then you'd hit an enormous amount of edge cases and really be able to understand carbon's shortcomings, no?
Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
121–130 of 521 posts
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#122We already have this with an open foundation: Rust No thanks
On the road map they have Broaden participation so no organization is >50%, so this has a good chance of not becoming Swiftoogle-Lang.
Also, under "Why not Rust?"
If you want to use Rust, and it is technically and economically
viable for your project, you should use Rust. In fact, if you can
use Rust or any other established programming language, you should.
Carbon is for organizations and projects that heavily depend on C++;
for example, projects that have a lot of C++ code or use many
third-party C++ libraries.Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#123(Speaking only for myself, I just watch from the sidelines and have no involvement) This seems like Google’s response to 1. Rust not being sufficiently “Go-like” (in the sense of the “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they're not researchers” quote) where C++ lets a bunch of people who are not really experts in the language write footguns that Google has to deal with when they cause problems at scal…
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.
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A key example of this is the committee's struggle to converge on a clear set of high-level and long-term goals and priorities aligned with ours [ https://wg21.link/p2137 ]. I was frankly shocked by that goals and priorities document. The non-goals section reads like an open declaration of war against anyone whose use cases for C++ differ from GOOG and NVDA. My interpretation of Carbon is that since GOOG failed to t…
(one of the Carbon leads) Success for the Carbon Language requires it to successfully be an independent and community driven project. We may not succeed (this really is an experiment), but we're working hard to engage broadly and early in large part because of this being such an important goal and priority for us. Projects like this have to start somewhere, but can grow and become community endeavors. We are also alr…
while we have you here, may I ask why is it called Carbon? It is because the symbol for atomic carbon is C ? :)
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
D is closer to this than this rust rip-off
Like every braces language following C is a C rip-off? Rusty syntax is objectively superior to almost everything else we've come up with, there's no reason it shouldn't be copied.
> Rusty syntax is objectively superior to almost everything else we've come up with, there's no reason it shouldn't be copied.
You mispelled "subjectively". Rust is a hideous looking language, despite its many other benefits.
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
The governance of the project is not immediately clear to me, and I have to assume that the Google team is working in good faith. That team cares a lot about C++ and its future. They are obviously aware of this stigma. I also think that Google is pretty bad at open source governance though :/ Disclosure: Former Google engineer who worked sorta adjacent to some of those people.
FWIW, our governance structure is here: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...
Huh looking at that page and saw Kate Gregory is involved. She's someone who, as a mostly outsider who dabbles in C++ occasionally, seemed incredibly dedicated to seeing C++ thrive and people come to understand the language. Her involvement here seems like a huge positive to me, but maybe that's coming from a place of ignorance.
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#127C++?? versions are the experimental successor to C++. A new language that the old C++ compilers cannot compile every 3-4 years.
Backward compatibility works the other way: new compilers can still compile old code.
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#128It's not immediately obvious from this page and GitHub org, but this is a Google led project. It's led by Chandler and the c++ toolchain team. I have no idea of it's endgoals or how open to non-Google ideas it will be.
> A key example of this is the committee's struggle to converge on a clear set of high-level and long-term goals and priorities aligned with ours [ https://wg21.link/p2137 ]. I was frankly shocked by that goals and priorities document. The non-goals section reads like an open declaration of war against anyone whose use cases for C++ differ from GOOG and NVDA. My interpretation of Carbon is that since GOOG failed to t…
I really don't see that. At the very start they say
> That said, our experience, use cases, and needs are clearly not those of every user. We aren’t pushing to directly build consensus on these points. Rather, this is presented as a vehicle to advertise our needs from C++ as a high-performance systems language.
The point of the non-goals is simply stating things they don't care about, which is pretty reasonable. After all, it's easy to say what you want, but what are you willing to give up for it?
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like every braces language following C is a C rip-off? Rusty syntax is objectively superior to almost everything else we've come up with, there's no reason it shouldn't be copied.
> is objectively superior Those objective criteria of superiority being?..
It eliminates the Most Vexing Parse.
Consider this C++ code:
Foo bar();
fn bar() -> Foo;
var bar : Foo;
Re: Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
The syntax looks a lot like Rust, though. I'm surprised they made such a break when there explicit goal is to make migration from C++ as easy as possible. Also, Rust (from my biased point of view) is currently on its way to become the standard low-level language, so I'm not too confident that Rust-but-with-OO is enough of a selling point.
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