Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85493 > unrolled thread

"Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-07-19 23:08 -0300
    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-20 08:29 +0000
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-07-20 16:38 -0300
        Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-07-20 14:38 -0700
          Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-07-20 18:49 -0300
            Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-07-21 00:04 +0100
              Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-07-20 20:20 -0300
    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-20 09:49 +0000
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-07-20 16:50 -0300
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-20 14:38 -0700
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-07-21 01:29 +0200
        Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-07-21 01:06 +0100
          Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-07-21 16:01 +0200
            Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-21 15:01 +0000
              Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ "gdo...@gmail.com" <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 08:45 -0700
                Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-22 06:56 +0000
                  Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-07-22 10:13 +0200
              Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-07-21 18:52 +0200
                Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ "gdo...@gmail.com" <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 12:42 -0700
                  Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 12:45 -0700
                Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-22 07:03 +0000
                  Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-07-22 09:44 +0200
                    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-07-22 01:20 -0700
                      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-22 08:38 +0000
                      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-07-22 10:39 +0200
                        Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-07-22 02:13 -0700
                    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-22 09:49 +0000
                      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-22 05:05 -0700
                  Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-07-22 13:07 +0000
                    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-24 07:38 +0000
                      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-07-24 12:15 +0200
                Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-22 08:26 +0000
              Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 12:39 -0700
                Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-22 08:36 +0000
    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-21 13:17 -0700
    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-22 09:07 +0200
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-22 04:58 -0700
    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-24 19:36 +0200
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-07-24 22:23 +0200
        Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-25 05:44 +0000
        Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Andreas Kempe <kempe@lysator.liu.se> - 2022-08-11 17:38 +0000
          Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-08-11 12:06 -0700
            Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Andreas Kempe <kempe@lysator.liu.se> - 2022-08-12 10:54 +0000
          Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-11 23:09 +0300
          Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-08-12 14:52 +0200
            Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Andreas Kempe <kempe@lysator.liu.se> - 2022-08-12 16:25 +0000
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-24 13:26 -0700
    Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-07-25 15:02 -0300
      Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++ successor" "gdo...@gmail.com" <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2022-07-26 20:04 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#85543 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all 
> still in serious use.

I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use.
Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.

In contrast, C is rather obviously in very active use, especially in the
embedded world. And no doubt helped by the fact that the Linux kernel is
written pretty much entirely in C.


(I must admit: For the longest time I was slightly averse to the idea
of something like the Linux kernel adhering so strictly to C. However,
having actually had some experience on the Linux kernel in particular,
and low-level embedded programming in general, I have kind of warmed
up to the idea a bit. Not that I have become a rabid defender of C in
this context, taking my opinion to the grave (like a certain kernel
author), but I am perhaps not so averse anymore to the concept of the
kernel being written in C and remaining so. I don't consider it *so*
bad of an idea anymore, as I did eg. a decade ago. I have seen the
advantages and I'm not completely unappreciative of them.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85545 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

Am 22.07.22 um 09:03 schrieb Juha Nieminen:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all
>> still in serious use.
> 
> I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use.
> Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.

This is a strange thing to say. Maybe you should decribe your definition 
of "serious use". Cobol still runs many financial transactions and 
Fortran is used in high performance numerical computing. Granted, these 
things are legacy and most people would be glad to get rid  of them, but 
it is very hard, especially if you have code that was tested for decades 
and is now considered bug-free which runs critical infrastructure.

But there is a reason that compilers for these languages are still being 
actively developed and sold[1-3].

          Christian

[1] visual cobol: 
https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual-cobol/overview
[2] ifort: 
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/tools/oneapi/fortran-compiler.html
[3] gcobol: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-March/238408.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85547 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 08:45:14 UTC+1, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 22.07.22 um 09:03 schrieb Juha Nieminen:
> > David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: 
> >> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all 
> >> still in serious use. 
> > 
> > I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use. 
> > Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.
> This is a strange thing to say. Maybe you should decribe your definition 
> of "serious use". Cobol still runs many financial transactions and 
> Fortran is used in high performance numerical computing. 
>
Remember that not everyone is a native English speaker.
"Serious" is one of those words which can be used in different ways.
"High seriousness", "a seriously fluffy kitten".

I'd understand "serious use" to be "not use in a hobby or educational
context, not use to demonstrate the capabilities of the language itself,
probably a use involving significant sums of money or, failing this,
important in some other way, such as for safety or science".
So a legacy Cobol system processing millions of dollars is clearly
"serious use", even thouhg the code might be quite simple and small.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85550 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 01:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>even thouhg the code might be quite simple and small.

Not a chance!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85551 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

Am 22.07.22 um 10:20 schrieb Malcolm McLean:
> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 08:45:14 UTC+1, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 22.07.22 um 09:03 schrieb Juha Nieminen:
>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all
>>>> still in serious use.
>>>
>>> I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use.
>>> Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.
>> This is a strange thing to say. Maybe you should decribe your definition
>> of "serious use". Cobol still runs many financial transactions and
>> Fortran is used in high performance numerical computing.
>>
> Remember that not everyone is a native English speaker.
> "Serious" is one of those words which can be used in different ways.
> "High seriousness", "a seriously fluffy kitten".
> 
> I'd understand "serious use" to be "not use in a hobby or educational
> context, not use to demonstrate the capabilities of the language itself,
> probably a use involving significant sums of money or, failing this,
> important in some other way, such as for safety or science".
> So a legacy Cobol system processing millions of dollars is clearly
> "serious use", even thouhg the code might be quite simple and small.
>   

This is also how I understood it (not being a native English speaker 
myself). But maybe Juha was thinking about something different: a lot of 
this code is out and running, and it is being maintained, but if someone 
were to write it from scratch, then they would choose a different 
language. Even then they might choose Fortran, which got updated with 
recent standards etc., but I highly doubt that anyone in their right 
mind would choose Cobol.

So "serious use" could be debatable if it means "programming in Cobol" 
as opposed to "running some legacy stuff in Cobol". Hence, my question 
about Juha's understanding of "serious use".

	Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85553 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 09:39:42 UTC+1, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 22.07.22 um 10:20 schrieb Malcolm McLean:
> > On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 08:45:14 UTC+1, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: 
> >> Am 22.07.22 um 09:03 schrieb Juha Nieminen: 
> >>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: 
> >>>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all 
> >>>> still in serious use. 
> >>> 
> >>> I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use. 
> >>> Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority. 
> >> This is a strange thing to say. Maybe you should decribe your definition 
> >> of "serious use". Cobol still runs many financial transactions and 
> >> Fortran is used in high performance numerical computing. 
> >> 
> > Remember that not everyone is a native English speaker. 
> > "Serious" is one of those words which can be used in different ways. 
> > "High seriousness", "a seriously fluffy kitten". 
> > 
> > I'd understand "serious use" to be "not use in a hobby or educational 
> > context, not use to demonstrate the capabilities of the language itself, 
> > probably a use involving significant sums of money or, failing this, 
> > important in some other way, such as for safety or science". 
> > So a legacy Cobol system processing millions of dollars is clearly 
> > "serious use", even thouhg the code might be quite simple and small. 
> >
> This is also how I understood it (not being a native English speaker 
> myself). 
"Serious" is used in a slightly slang way to mean "of large quantity" as
well as in its canonical meaning of "not jocular or unimportant".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85555 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 22.07.22 um 09:03 schrieb Juha Nieminen:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all
>>> still in serious use.
>> 
>> I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use.
>> Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.
> 
> This is a strange thing to say. Maybe you should decribe your definition 
> of "serious use".

Or more like a definition of "use". There's a difference between "programs
written in Cobol are still in use" and "new programs are being written
using Cobol" (and by "new" I don't mean programs that are written in
that language for legacy reasons because they need to use existing
libraries or codebases written in Cobol. "New" as in starting from a
clean slate, without using existing legacy code.)

The latter is certainly true for C.

But even if it's true also for Cobol and Fortran, I would guess it's not
extraordinarily common overall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85564 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 12:50:02 PM UTC+3, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Christian Gollwitzer <auri...@gmx.de> wrote: 
> > Am 22.07.22 um 09:03 schrieb Juha Nieminen: 
> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: 
> >>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all 
> >>> still in serious use. 
> >> 
> >> I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use. 
> >> Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority. 
> > 
> > This is a strange thing to say. Maybe you should decribe your definition 
> > of "serious use".
> Or more like a definition of "use". There's a difference between "programs 
> written in Cobol are still in use" and "new programs are being written 
> using Cobol" (and by "new" I don't mean programs that are written in 
> that language for legacy reasons because they need to use existing 
> libraries or codebases written in Cobol. "New" as in starting from a 
> clean slate, without using existing legacy code.) 
> 
> The latter is certainly true for C. 
> 
> But even if it's true also for Cobol and Fortran, I would guess it's not 
> extraordinarily common overall.

I am not sure about Fortran.
Julia was supposed to be a hair apparent. But it's popularity grows too
slowly. If it still grows.
I'd guess that main reason for that is python+numpy+scipy, which is not
good enough solution to replace Fortran completely, but is good enough
take wind out of Julia's sails.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85566 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all 
>> still in serious use.
>
>I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use.
>Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.

   "COBOL is still very popular today in 2021. Depending on the
    source you're looking at, there are still between 200 and 250
    billion lines of COBOL code in production. Many large corporations,
    70% in fact, still rely on COBOL for much of their mission critical work."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85579 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all 
>>> still in serious use.
>>
>>I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use.
>>Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.
> 
>    "COBOL is still very popular today in 2021. Depending on the
>     source you're looking at, there are still between 200 and 250
>     billion lines of COBOL code in production. Many large corporations,
>     70% in fact, still rely on COBOL for much of their mission critical work."

Not "programs written in COBOL in use", but *the language itself*, as in
actually being used to write new programs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85580 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On 2022-07-24 at 09:38, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all
>>>> still in serious use.
>>>
>>> I have never heard of Cobol and Fortran being still in serious use.
>>> Even if they are, they must be a minuscule minority.
>>
>>     "COBOL is still very popular today in 2021. Depending on the
>>      source you're looking at, there are still between 200 and 250
>>      billion lines of COBOL code in production. Many large corporations,
>>      70% in fact, still rely on COBOL for much of their mission critical work."
> 
> Not "programs written in COBOL in use", but *the language itself*, as in
> actually being used to write new programs.

If you are one of those corporations having 10s of millions of lines of 
Cobol, what language would you use to write the next million lines?

I recently worked for a bank, where 100s of developers wrote Cobol code 
all day.

Sure, the phone apps are written in Java, but they have to "call home" 
to the mainframe, where *newly written* Cobol code collects the info 
from the database.


This use of Cobol is strictly inhouse, so doesn't show up on TIOBE. As a 
matter of fact, we were **explicitly** told not to post any of the code 
on StackOverflow or Reddit! Questions on inhouse code is supposed to be 
handled inhouse. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85548 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 18:52:57 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 21/07/2022 17:01, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> It'll depend heavily on how hardware evolves and I suspect the hardware
>> that exists in 100 years will bear little to no resemblence to what we
>> have now either in physical construction or logical operation. Perhaps it'll
>> be quantum, perhaps it'll be something that hasn't even been thought of yet.
>> 
>
>C, Cobol and Fortran have been around for 50 years or more, and are all 
>still in serious use.  Other languages come and go - and some have come, 

When serious change happens it happens fast. The flip from analogue to digital
computers happened in the space of a few years. Ditto steam to diesel on the
railways. The von neumann architecture might be the dominant hardware design
today but I'd lay good money on it being a historic curiousity in 100 years.

>Quantum computers are an expensive excuse to play with cool toys.  I 

Right now yes. A lot can happen in a century.

>invented just to suit quantum computers).  They /might/ turn out to be 
>helpful for certain specific optimisation problems.  But for "everyday" 
>computing, they haven't a chance, and never will do.

I'm sure history is littered with people who said the same thing about cutting
edge tech that had no immediate advantage over the current state of the art.
Fixed wing aircraft vs airships springs to mind.

>(Feel free to contact me in a hundred years if I turn out to be wrong!)

We'll both be long dead then so no chance of either of us to say "I told you
so" :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85530 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On 7/21/2022 8:01 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:01:54 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 21/07/2022 02:06, Chris Vine wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 01:29:08 +0200
>>> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> wrote:
>>>> One major problem I see with all those wannabe C++ successor is that C++
>>>> has built a foundation that is several decades long, which counts for
>>>> reliability and stability of the language (until the committee will
>>>> manage to ruin this by keeping on doing what they are doing as of late)
>>>> These qualities are very valuable in projects and organizations where
>>>> product quality matters.
>>>>
>>>> In order to gain a comparable level of recognition, a successor of C++
>>>> would have to be building a similar foundation, and die along the way.
>>>
>>> Indeed, as Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead".  No one knows
>>> what language people (if they then exist) will be programming in in 100
>>> years time.
>>>
>>
>> We know some of it.  We'll still have C, Cobol, and a bit of Fortran :-)
> 
> It'll depend heavily on how hardware evolves and I suspect the hardware
> that exists in 100 years will bear little to no resemblence to what we
> have now either in physical construction or logical operation. Perhaps it'll
> be quantum, perhaps it'll be something that hasn't even been thought of yet.
[...]

Wrt quantum... Check this out, Q#:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Sharp

;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85549 — Re: "Carbon, a new programming language from Google, aims to be C++

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 12:39:40 -0700
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 7/21/2022 8:01 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:01:54 +0200
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2022 02:06, Chris Vine wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 01:29:08 +0200
>>>> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> One major problem I see with all those wannabe C++ successor is that C++
>>>>> has built a foundation that is several decades long, which counts for
>>>>> reliability and stability of the language (until the committee will
>>>>> manage to ruin this by keeping on doing what they are doing as of late)
>>>>> These qualities are very valuable in projects and organizations where
>>>>> product quality matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to gain a comparable level of recognition, a successor of C++
>>>>> would have to be building a similar foundation, and die along the way.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, as Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead".  No one knows
>>>> what language people (if they then exist) will be programming in in 100
>>>> years time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We know some of it.  We'll still have C, Cobol, and a bit of Fortran :-)
>> 
>> It'll depend heavily on how hardware evolves and I suspect the hardware
>> that exists in 100 years will bear little to no resemblence to what we
>> have now either in physical construction or logical operation. Perhaps it'll
>> be quantum, perhaps it'll be something that hasn't even been thought of yet.
>[...]
>
>Wrt quantum... Check this out, Q#:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Sharp

Looks like something for post grads rather than something for serious use
right now. 

Anyway, no doubt the C++ steering committee will soon run out of spurious
extra syntax and pointless semantics to add to the language and will probably
think about adding an entire quantum subsection for c++ 203X in order to 
continue justifying their existence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85535

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 5:08:24 AM UTC+3, Cholo Lennon wrote:
> Carbon, the latest programming language to be built within Google, was 
> unveiled today as an experimental successor to C++... 
> 
> https://9to5google.com/2022/07/19/carbon-programming-language-google-cpp/

Sound like they don't have and don't plan to have BDFL.
Which mean mediocrity at best and irrelevance at worst.
Luckily, with google's weight behind them, worst case is not very likely,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85544

Am 20.07.2022 um 04:08 schrieb Cholo Lennon:
> Carbon, the latest programming language to be built within Google, was 
> unveiled today as an experimental successor to C++...
> 
> https://9to5google.com/2022/07/19/carbon-programming-language-google-cpp/

Wake me up when this language is at least so popular that is
has a Wikipedia article.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85563

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 10:06:43 AM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 20.07.2022 um 04:08 schrieb Cholo Lennon: 
> > Carbon, the latest programming language to be built within Google, was 
> > unveiled today as an experimental successor to C++... 
> > 
> > https://9to5google.com/2022/07/19/carbon-programming-language-google-cpp/
> Wake me up when this language is at least so popular that is 
> has a Wikipedia article.

Current announcement is mostly for people that would like to participate in
definition of the language and to help reference implementation.
They openly admit that it will take several years until Carbon becomes viable for end users.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85590

Am 20.07.2022 um 04:08 schrieb Cholo Lennon:
> Carbon, the latest programming language to be built within Google, was 
> unveiled today as an experimental successor to C++...
> 
> https://9to5google.com/2022/07/19/carbon-programming-language-google-cpp/

I don't know why such a language should be necessary. I don't have
notworthy issues with writing C++-code, even with C++20. But of course
such a language is easier to learn, but once you've get fluent with C++
there's no difference when the features are mostly the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85596

On 2022-07-24 at 19:36, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 20.07.2022 um 04:08 schrieb Cholo Lennon:
>> Carbon, the latest programming language to be built within Google, was 
>> unveiled today as an experimental successor to C++...
>>
>> https://9to5google.com/2022/07/19/carbon-programming-language-google-cpp/
> 
> I don't know why such a language should be necessary. I don't have
> notworthy issues with writing C++-code, even with C++20. But of course
> such a language is easier to learn, but once you've get fluent with C++
> there's no difference when the features are mostly the same.

The Carbon github page lists some of their reasons to create a new 
languagage:

Welcoming open-source community

  - Clear goals and priorities with robust governance
  - Community that works to be welcoming, inclusive, and friendly
  - Batteries-included approach: compiler, libraries, docs, tools, 
package manager, and more


Apparently those are things believed to be missing for C++.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85602

Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> wrote:
>  - Community that works to be welcoming, inclusive, and friendly

Especially "inclusive" is a warning flag, because in modern political
vocabulary it means pretty much the exact opposite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web