From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-65-14.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John McCabe <john@nospam.mccabe.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Carbon
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 09:09:57 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <tbgdt5$3pbdq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <f91d8f78-d92f-4200-a1bd-dce840bf0400n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 09:09:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="740dd16e7fa1661c6bfba223201545a8";
	logging-data="3976634"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19j+loQJFQmdadz6SA7/Fce4zVwYymdrRg="
User-Agent: PhoNews/3.9.1 (Android/8.1.0)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f0/jIdL1weJ5X5rd6wgwQ/Xtz00=
In-Reply-To: <f91d8f78-d92f-4200-a1bd-dce840bf0400n@googlegroups.com>
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:64119
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 22/07/2022 22:13, Gautier write-only address wrote:
>Next attempt to replace C/C++ without really replacing it: Carbon!
>
>You will notice, as usual, a few aspects borrowed from Ada - and one point inspired by Ada 83 (which was relaxed in a later Ada version) :-)
>

I read that stuff yesterday and, yet again, shook my head in disbelief :-(

The bit where I laughed was where it was claimed that C++ is building
 technical debt because it's not changing quickly enough; C++ is currently a
 mess because it's changing too quickly! Half-baked, and half-implemented
 ideas are going into 'standards' in the full knowledge that they'll change
 again in the next one. Even g++ doesn't provide 100% support for C++17
 (https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx17)!

Carbon is likely to be even worse; every 'new' language that promises the
 earth, without being designed in a rigorous way, ends up with the same
 problems. Java - I started playing with that in the 90s and got frustrated
 that every update brought more and more depreciation warnings in. Python -
 2.x -> 3.0 was a massive jump (and took years to gain traction) because the
 'designers' just hadn't done a very good job to start with! Rust? Mmm

As for the 'reuse C++ syntax'; why the obsession with that? C++ syntax is
 really bad! (Semantics, in some cases, are another level - how many
 languages need a book like "C++ Gotchas"?!).

Aaaaarrrrgghhh!