3 ms·

Sutter might be a bigger name, but I think this has about the same chances as Damian Conway's SPECS[1]. [1]:https://users.monash.edu/~damian/papers/HTML/Modest

• projektfu 4y ago
  Perhaps. But Sutter sits on the committee, and therefore has more ability to get these things into the standard.
• WCSTombs 4y ago
  From what I gather, the projects have quite different goals. CppFront: > My specific goal is to explore the question: Can we make C++ 10x safer, simpler, and more toolable if C++ had an alternative "syntax #2," within which we could be completely free to improve semantics by applying 30 years' worth of C++ language experience without any backward source compatibility constraints? SPECS: > We propose an alternative text-based syntactic binding (called SPECS) for the existing semantics of the C++ language. So while SPECS is semantically equivalent to C++ as it is today, CppFront isn't bound by that constraint. Sutter makes this very clear later in the README: > Important disclaimer: This isn't about 'just a pretty syntax,' it's about fixing semantics. Just to be clear, my intent isn't to diminish Conway's work in any way. Both are interesting projects, just with different goals.
  • zozbot234 4y ago
    CppFront is supposed to be 100% link-compatible with the existing C++ ABI. Even if that isn't "semantically equivalent" in a strict sense, it's so close that it makes no real difference.
  • lifthrasiir 4y ago
    > So while SPECS is semantically equivalent to C++ as it is today, CppFront isn't bound by that constraint. This can be actually seen as cppfront having less chance than SPECS.