carbon-lang

That's an early stage, pre-production, experimental language. They are still a couple years out from a 1.0. They aren't moving away from clang for that anytime soon and they sure haven't abandoned clang for it. Also it isn't even proprietary[1] 1. https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/LI...

I think it would be more constructive to propose a constrained subset, get rid of legacy, propose default behaviours for parts that are undefined and so on. Stuff that does not belong to this subset can still be used within an unconstrained clause. If I read e.g. "Why build Carbon?" on https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang I dont find any concrete reasons or proves that show why C++ should be abandoned for something completely new but somehow very similar. There are so many question around the actual language definition like who maintains it, how is the standardization process. Who will adapt to it or to something else. ... This seems all so utopic. I have been using C++ for many years with fantastic success. It allows me to create all I want/need from embedded to high performance projects. That you may shot you in the foot is i

It has come a few times on Reddit discussions complaing about clang slowdown. Additionally, https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...

Most of the worst issues with C++ can't actually be fixed without backwards incompatible changes that would break large amounts of existing code. Google spent several years advocating for the approach that you're suggesting, but was unable to persuade other members of the C++ standards committee and recently announced that they're working on a replacement language. The rationale for Carbon goes into great detail on why fixing C++ isn't a viable option. https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do... https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang

Google is trying to do something like that with their new Carbon language. https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang

I feel so sad for hours now...well, from the time I saw the original post on reddit and then here. For the past few days all I can see in HN is the announcement of new languages and research projects that relate to C++: * Carbon (https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang) * Val (https://www.val-lang.dev/) * Jakt (https://github.com/serenityos/jakt) * now Cppfront... Is everything alright within ANSI / ISO committee?

> - All basic types (excluding pointers and references) are const by default and may be marked 'mutable' to allow them to be changed after declaration If you're not changing how const works, then this has limited utility in C++ because C++ const has all sorts of problems (e.g. not transitive). Also, what does the "mutable" annotation for a free function (i.e. main) mean? That just seems weird. > - Lambda capture lists must be explicit (no [&] or [=], by themselves) [&] is pretty valuable in cases where you do something like invokeSynchronously([&] {...}) I don't know that your changes will ever see much adoption because it won't be able to compile anything more complex than a "hello world" program as all the things you disallow are used & the porting effort is not cosmetic. Additionally, you're not actually fixing any of

From Carbon's FAQ[1]: > Why not Rust? If you can use Rust, ignore Carbon. So that's probably one reason. [1]: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...

It's about Carbon Language (from google) not the framework. https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang

This suggest that Carbon itself won't support exceptions: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...

Not a C++ programmer, but I'd like to ask: Are Carbon's goals for interop here sufficient for most libraries and frameworks, or will bridge code be required in most cases? I see this about exceptions, for instance: "Carbon may not provide seamless interoperability support for C++ exceptions. For example, translating C++ exceptions to or from Carbon errors might require annotations or bridge code, and those translations may have some performance overhead or lose information. Furthermore, if Carbon code calls a C++ function without suitable annotations or bridging, and that function exits with an exception, the program might terminate." https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...

It's not inheriting the complexity though. That's sort of the whole goal - the next 'generation' of C++ that can be used interchangeably with actual C++ but allowing re-visiting most of the design decisions and throwing out old features. 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." [1] https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang

> Why try to compete with Rust while not really being a better Rust? The linked article explains this: classes defined in C++ can be used in Carbon and vice-versa. It even suggests you stick to Rust if that's not what you need. Edit: Oops, I assumed that the "linked article" was the github page[1] for Carbon, which is a lot more useful. [1] https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang#why-build-car...

The official webisite (https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang) goes into better detail, but the gist is that you can basically #include C++ libraries and use their APIs as-is, without needing to resort to unsafe blocks or having to write more idiomatic wrappers.

I’m a big fan of ‘var’ and ‘let’ in Swift. Easier to identify mutable vs immutable variables. I believe Carbon uses the same convention? https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang Helps with quick auto-completion, and someday when I get to dictate code, fewer mistakes.