32 ms·
Not a C++ programmer, but I'd like to ask: Are Carbon's goals for interop here sufficient for most libraries and frameworks, or will bridge code be required in
by debug-desperado 4y ago
Not a C++ programmer, but I'd like to ask: Are Carbon's goals for interop here sufficient for most libraries and frameworks, or will bridge code be required in most cases?
I see this about exceptions, for instance:
"Carbon may not provide seamless interoperability support for C++ exceptions. For example, translating C++ exceptions to or from Carbon errors might require annotations or bridge code, and those translations may have some performance overhead or lose information. Furthermore, if Carbon code calls a C++ function without suitable annotations or bridging, and that function exits with an exception, the program might terminate."
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/docs/design/interoperability/philosophy_and_goals.md#non-goals https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...
- sseth 4y agoI am guessing that this is less of a concern for Google. Per Google's C++ style guide : "We do not use C++ exceptions." So they are already not using that feature in their C++ code today. https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Exceptions https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Exceptions
- debug-desperado 4y agoThat’s what I was getting at. I hope they get some real feedback from Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Qualcomm, etc before making something that is really only useful at Google.