3 ms·
The other big selling point is "developer interop". If you work on a stack that is locked to c++ (interop) and need to get developers productive who grew up wit
by usrusr 4y ago
The other big selling point is "developer interop". If you work on a stack that is locked to c++ (interop) and need to get developers productive who grew up with the go, rust, kotlin generation of languages, carbon looks extremely promising compared to trying to force-feed them forty years of c++ quirks.
- guitarbill 4y agoSadly, if it's interoperable with C++, you'll likely need to know forty years of C++ quirks at some point... It all just seems like a band-aid (adhesive plaster for non-native speakers). I wonder if having a stable ABI wouldn't be better. Specifically the CXX project shows how this kind of capability is extremely powerful.
- usrusr 4y agoNot really, not when the carbon-only team can throw things back over the wall to the legacy experts who promised proper interop. And that the new devs aren't even tempted to solve it on their own, which would inevitably happen if instead of carbon they'd try to achieve the same by sticking to some modern subset of c++. With carbon, the new generation who don't know better don't have to be painstakingly supervised to not use any bad subsets of those "~4 languages". Saving the man-hours that would otherwise be spent on arguing about the exact composition of that subset would likely be enough to make the switch worthwhile (yeah, I might be projecting, I'd get nothing done at all)