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 23:47:23 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <993af397-b615-44e7-ae8d-ec706f9b6098n@googlegroups.com> <5f819cdd-e763-4a96-aed5-545d57edac23n@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 23:47:23 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="48836f3a60beee04436a3d326b36eb6d"; logging-data="450232"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SbfMjAtIdZrDiFUaREFhjE3NJhKihbxM=" User-Agent: PhoNews/3.9.1 (Android/8.1.0) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CDiWlpC81L6TJ9lbIg5jH3uOkeA= In-Reply-To: <5f819cdd-e763-4a96-aed5-545d57edac23n@googlegroups.com> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:64230 List-Id: On 25/08/2022 18:55, John Perry wrote: >On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 4:14:02 AM UTC-5, 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: >> >> > There are obviously changes that we'd like to make to C++, but calling C++ "half-baked" is demeaning to those who have invested years of work into that project. >> >> >> TBH, this whole project just appears to be Google trying to detract from Rust >> > This is disrespectful to everyone working on the Carbon Language project. >> >> I agree with both. > >I can agree with the statements you've quoted, and I can agree with their closing the thread (they didn't delete it!) but he also called them "aggressive" statements, and that's simply untrue. Assertive and strongly-worded? sure, but aggressive? They claimed the use of: - 'nonsense', in relation to features such as the confusion between "=" and "==", where an assignment has a result that can be used as a condition etc, and the multiple uses of "&&", - 'half-baked', in relation to features that have been partially added in earlier, and current revisions of the language, and have changed, or will change, or have been deprecated in subsequent revisions, as well as features that have been compromised in the standard because "clang implements an existing way which makes it hard for them to change" was aggressive. I disagree, of course.