3 ms·

No. No. No. This reminds me of Dart - another big company thinking they can invent a new language to tackle old language problems. This is not the way to impr

No. No. No. This reminds me of Dart - another big company thinking they can invent a new language to tackle old language problems. This is not the way to improve C++ - because this path already exists, either as D or if compatibility or OO model isn't an issue, Rust. C++ has been improving slowly but surely - just remember that 90% (heck even more) of C++ issues stem from the hell that's compatibility with C and that's both a blessing and a curse.

piperswe 4y ago
Same big company actually - Dart and Carbon are both Google projects
ironman1478 4y ago
Google is in the business of making software in exchange for money and they have internally determined that the way C++ is and the direction C++ is headed isn't good for them. They don't "care" about C++, they care about running a business. They have determined that C++ as it is isn't sufficient and the direction its going is not acceptable to meet long term goals, whether that be implementing new products or maintaining existing software. Google has wholly unique software organization problems that very few other companies probably have. If you've seen their cppcon talks, you'll see that the changes they want are not what the committee (or even the general c++ community) focuses on (for example, I couldn't care less about ranges). For example, they want to make changes to unique_ptr because the inefficiencies in the ABI cause performance issues and probably can be tracked to additional cost per month. They couldn't make these changes without changing ABI. At google scale, small inefficiencies add up so fast. I have no doubt they looked at D and saw that it wasn't feasible (for whatever reason) and they already stated why Rust is not sufficient. They wouldn't make this decision arbitrarily and we are not privy to all the meetings that went into the decision making process.
- ehzy 4y ago
  Do you mind sharing a reference for the changed Google wanted to make to unique_ptr? I tried searching but couldn't come up with the right set of keywords to find anything relevant. TY!
  - ironman1478 4y ago
    Its in this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHIkrotSwcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHIkrotSwcc

piperswe 4y ago

Same big company actually - Dart and Carbon are both Google projects

ironman1478 4y ago

Google is in the business of making software in exchange for money and they have internally determined that the way C++ is and the direction C++ is headed isn't good for them. They don't "care" about C++, they care about running a business. They have determined that C++ as it is isn't sufficient and the direction its going is not acceptable to meet long term goals, whether that be implementing new products or maintaining existing software. Google has wholly unique software organization problems that very few other companies probably have. If you've seen their cppcon talks, you'll see that the changes they want are not what the committee (or even the general c++ community) focuses on (for example, I couldn't care less about ranges). For example, they want to make changes to unique_ptr because the inefficiencies in the ABI cause performance issues and probably can be tracked to additional cost per month. They couldn't make these changes without changing ABI. At google scale, small inefficiencies add up so fast. I have no doubt they looked at D and saw that it wasn't feasible (for whatever reason) and they already stated why Rust is not sufficient. They wouldn't make this decision arbitrarily and we are not privy to all the meetings that went into the decision making process.

ehzy 4y ago
Do you mind sharing a reference for the changed Google wanted to make to unique_ptr? I tried searching but couldn't come up with the right set of keywords to find anything relevant. TY!
- ironman1478 4y ago
  Its in this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHIkrotSwcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHIkrotSwcc