4 ms·
It was obviously a click-bait as half-way through the article it was clearly written to promote Val, a language practically no one has heard of as compared to C
by MoscMob 4y ago
It was obviously a click-bait as half-way through the article it was clearly written to promote Val, a language practically no one has heard of as compared to Carbon and CPP2. The click-bait worked. Val looks like a real contender, but now I'm forced to ignore it because of the dishonest means by which I was introduced to it :)
- MoscMob 4y agoOh, another thing. There is nothing about Val that places it as a successor of C++ in any way. A C++ successor language starts by supporting interoperability with C++, at the source level. It didn't even attempt to do this. This just looks like someone who likes Val wants it to be considered as a successor to the language, and not be overshadowed by CPP2 and Carbon. My absolute favorite part of the article, which I'm going to steal in the future, is the disclaimer that translates any future failure of Val to a success: "if Val dies as a programming language but all its ideas are incorporated in C++, then I will be delighted." pahleeze
- michaelmrose 4y agoWhy would a proposed successor language require compatibility with c++ source? Logically a successor is one in which you write future projects in not one which all existing code must compile now else you'd be stuck with the same tech in 2100 as 1980.
- duped 4y agoI don't think your last paragraph is a fair criticism. That's more or less how PL research is conducted.A feature of a PL is successful if it escapes the lab, not if the research language it was implemented in gets popular in industry. The latter is quite rare while the former just takes a long time, which is why industry lags academia so much.
- neonsunset 4y agoYou explicitly don’t need direct source level interoperability with C++. The language just has to become the primary choice in the domains C++ used to be one. Rust appears to fit this definition quite well.