4 ms·

You didn't appear to read my comment, I'm talking about compatibility with Rust and all these other look alike languages. Also your Vala comparison would imply

• hiq 4y ago
  If they manage to make Carbon highly compatible with C++ (which is one of the design goals IIUC), then a C++/Rust compatibility layer should work fine with Carbon/Rust, or am I missing something? That's a big "if" of course, and time will tell whether they manage to pull it off, but at least that seems to be where they want to go.
  • pipeline_peak 4y ago
    Rust is already in production, I don’t think they take a different approach to compatibility.
    • hiq 4y ago
      The same approach to compatibility with C++? Can you use Rust as successor language in a C++ codebase, just like Typescript in a Javascript codebase? From my (limited) understanding that's not as straightforward, and other sources online seem to agree with this (e.g. see comments in https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/w2tygg/carbon_language_an_experimental_successor_to_c/ https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/w2tygg/carbon_languag...). The way I see it, Carbon has C++ compatibility as a requirement, adding as much safety, performance etc. as possible on top, while Rust seems to start from a safe-by-default approach and building its way from there.
    • baobob 4y ago
      From experience binding some Rust and C++ is not a trivial task. The introduction of Rust ownership and lifetimes alone means this always involves new design, even just to provide something approaching a 1:1 mapping to an existing API. True 1:1 mappings at least in my experience simply aren't possible, there is always some contortion required to reduce the freedom+unsafety exported by C