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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Carbon Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 23:39:49 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <993af397-b615-44e7-ae8d-ec706f9b6098n@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 23:39:49 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="48836f3a60beee04436a3d326b36eb6d"; logging-data="448897"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ODMQNcWJR6vaJWNwLh6wsDfh5TvT43mw=" User-Agent: PhoNews/3.9.1 (Android/8.1.0) Cancel-Lock: sha1:UlfNSJShq5X7saAUvq8MDbIZ+qY= In-Reply-To: <993af397-b615-44e7-ae8d-ec706f9b6098n@googlegroups.com> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:64229 List-Id: On 25/08/2022 10:14, Fabien Chouteau wrote: >On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 7:24:58 PM UTC+2, John McCabe wrote: >> The result is that someone who appears to have >> very little software development experience misinterpreted the comments >> about half-baked features and locked the thread. > >I think they did the right thing. And provided explanations: The issue with this is that, as I mentioned, they misinterpreted what I'd said. I specifically mentioned that new, half-baked, features were being added to the language, which they are. I don't know if you've used C++11/14/17/20 in anger Fabien, but anyone who doesn't think the partial, but awkward to use, addition of coroutines in C++20, with the promise of 'improvements' in C++23 is anything but 'half-baked' is deluded. There are numerous other, specific features I was able to itemise in a discussion with another person involved in that thread. In particular, the person who made that misinterpretation and comment, and closed the thread, is someone who has been involved with C++ standards development so 1) clearly did not have an objective view on the comments, and 2) makes me believe the Carbon 'team' don't actually care about what's 'right' for the industry. >I don't know if the people working on Carbon had a bad opinion about Ada before, but sure do now. The people working on Carbon clearly don't give a sh1t about Ada; if they did, they would not be proposing to 'supersede' C++ by creating a language that includes many of the fault-ridden features of that language, a lot of which had been solved in Ada before C++ was a twinkle in Stroustrop's eyes. >In the end I think that you did a lot of damage to Ada, its reputation and its community... That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. -