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: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 00:30:06 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <993af397-b615-44e7-ae8d-ec706f9b6098n@googlegroups.com> <5f819cdd-e763-4a96-aed5-545d57edac23n@googlegroups.com> <877d2u21ps.fsf@nightsong.com> <8735di1y6a.fsf@nightsong.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 00:30:06 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="48836f3a60beee04436a3d326b36eb6d"; logging-data="457518"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Zo7GJzWhIuwCaL5GrX14J2rq4FsPE1Hk=" User-Agent: PhoNews/3.9.1 (Android/8.1.0) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zDEpxAw4AzdP3cUZGsboJTpuAxM= In-Reply-To: <8735di1y6a.fsf@nightsong.com> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:64232 List-Id: On 26/08/2022 22:40, Paul Rubin wrote: >Olivier Henley 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.