Re: Carbon

[John McCabe <john@nospam.mccabe.org.uk>]

On 26/08/2022 22:40, Paul Rubin wrote:
>Olivier Henley <olivier.henley@gmail.com> writes:
>> I guess my real point was, the guy is willing to take the heat,
>> bluntly asking questions I definitely share.
>
>It was possible to make the exact same points more neutrally.  Beyond
>that though, I didn't see evidence that the guy had looked at Carbon in
>any detail. 

Who? Me? I had taken enough of a look to see that they appeared to be
 retaining various aspects of C++ 'because that's what people are familiar
 with', without accepting that some of those, at least, were flawed. 

>The criticisms were purely of C++, so I would consider that
>a low-effort post.

Given the claims of Carbon being aimed at superseding C++, which is what I'd
 read at the time, the points were "this flawed feature in C++ is addressed
 in Ada by this...". I'm not really sure how you can aim to design a new
 language without discussing or highlighting the flaws in other languages,
 in this case, C++, as that was the target.

However I've now come to believe the aim of the Carbon team is to re-create
 C++ but in a way that doesn't require new features and changes to go
 through the standardisation hoops that C++ goes through, i.e. so they can
 basically change it at will (makes me think of early Java, where
 depreciation was very, very common). 

>And the part about abandoning Carbon was dismissive
>toward the whole Carbon project.  The Carbon github site is surely the
>wrong place for that.

I don't disagree that it was probably the wrong place to say that.