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 08:57:16 -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> <87ler9ywye.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 08:57:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="48836f3a60beee04436a3d326b36eb6d"; logging-data="632823"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CG9F7kVFT9QeiK0/7E1CrsEiUhqEWuE4=" User-Agent: PhoNews/3.9.1 (Android/8.1.0) Cancel-Lock: sha1:OnWdaI3Tuem4zZxBoo5lE1UvmTY= In-Reply-To: <87ler9ywye.fsf@nightsong.com> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:64237 List-Id: On 28/08/2022 02:32, Paul Rubin wrote: >John McCabe writes: >> 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). >Have they been changing Go at will? I don't have that impression. I have no clue, as I've never used Go, hence why I never mentioned it anywhere. >I do think they want to shed a lot of assumptions that were valid or >sensible at the time C++ was first designed, and also to not have their >design choices constrained by C++ legacy support. Yet they're happy to adopt many of C++'s legacy syntactic/semantic issues, e.g. assignment produces a result that can be implicitly converted to a boolean and used in a conditional which, when considered at the same time as the use of "=" for assignment, and "==" for comparison, has caused numerous issues and head-scratching over the years. >Go is sort of a recreation of C, with garbage collection and cooperative >multitasking baked into the language. It otherwise has a fairly similar >execution model and type system. It's not a C++ replacement both >because of its GC dependence and its weaker type system. > >I haven't used Rust, but from what I can understand, its type system is >Haskell-inspired and more modern than either C++'s or Ada's. Compared >with C++, it gives its user better hope of code correctness through its >use of safe defaults like immutable values and unique pointer ownership. >You can override the defaults and get similar non-safety to C++, if you >need that for some reason. > >What then is Carbon? I don't know, and I'm not convinced that you do >either. You are quite right; I have little clue what Carbon is, despite having read the "What is Carbon?" FAQ at their github page.