5 ms·

I think that's automatically a dead end, then. People have inceasingly abandoned closed source compilers, they create a huge risk if the maker decides to stop m

I think that's automatically a dead end, then. People have inceasingly abandoned closed source compilers, they create a huge risk if the maker decides to stop maintaining it. Most languages that people pick up have an open source software implementation.

steveklabnik 2y ago
I think it's more complicated than that, but I agree that it's a factor that would give some folks pause for currently adopting Circle.
jay-barronville 2y ago
In most cases, I’d probably agree with your point here, but in this case, I think you’re wrong. If Circle can truly accomplish its stated goals, the value proposition of a memory-safe superset of C++ is ginormous. Lots of companies with critical software written in C++ won’t care that Circle isn’t open-source as long as it ticks all of their boxes (certifications, audits, etc.) and they have a strong enterprise support story. This isn’t your average project.
- nicce 2y ago
  Even Ada is not that closed. But yeah, Ada proves that some will pay, a lot.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Enough that there are still seven vendors selling Ada compilers.
- wrsh07 2y ago
  I hope that's right, but I don't really get it. From a practical standpoint, when you run your tests with msan and asan (and if you have decent test coverage) I'm not convinced of the benefits of memory safety that eg rust provides Supposing that it is worth it though, why not migrate to rust? I have a friend starting a startup / consultancy to do just that, and it makes more sense than using circle. Even carbon says "if you can use rust, use rust not carbon"
  - jay-barronville 2y ago
    > Supposing that it is worth it though, why not migrate to rust? I have a friend starting a startup / consultancy to do just that, and it makes more sense than using circle. Even carbon says "if you can use rust, use rust not carbon" A key selling point for Circle is the “superset of C++” aspect. What you’re proposing—while feasible for startups—is entirely unreasonable for larger companies, especially those with existing [usually massive] C++ codebases. With enough evangelizing, you might get them to agree to start using something like Rust in new, smaller, and internal projects. However, suggesting a rewrite of anything mission-critical that can directly impact the bottom line to an entirely different language, ecosystem, behaviors, guarantees, community, etc. is one of the most scary proposals you can make to a company. Are the existing engineers proficient in this new language? How long will it take to ramp up? Are there any new costs (not just financial) to adopting this new language (hint: there always are)? Are there legal concerns? How long will the rewrite take (hint: likely longer than the engineers think)? The list goes on. It’s simply too risky a proposition.
    - wrsh07 2y ago
      I don't believe your claim about migrating to rust being untenable. Primarily because I worked at Google where I've seen them migrate the codebase consistently through years of development and language updates. If an enormous company like Google can switch CPU architectures, change their numeric types, change out their hash maps, etc, then yes you can migrate to using a whole new language. (If Google thought this was impossible, why bother with carbon?) I say this confidently because I've worked directly with people doing this and seen their work. I will claim one better and say: you can migrate to idiomatic rust (with help from some custom libraries) Should companies do this? Depends on the industry and the needs for the kind of safety rust provides
  - xmcqdpt2 2y ago
    The problem with testing is that you need a very large number of tests to cover a moderately complex piece of software: you need to test most branches obviously, but often you need to test combinations of behaviours such that 100% line testing is still not even close to enough testing. The advantage of compile time verification is that you can prove that certain paths and behaviours are impossible and don't need to be tested. This reduces the space of required tests combinatorially. We all already do that: no one bothers testing (for example) that standard library functions work correctly in their own code base. In Rust (and strongly typed languages in general) there are entire classes of test and assertions that aren't needed anymore.
dataflow 2y ago
Isn't MSVC closed source?
- bluGill 2y ago
  Yes, but there are several arguements in favor of MSVC that don't apply in general. MSVC is for and from the same people as Windows, Windows is large enough and popular enough that it isn't going away (Microsoft would have to die - and even if that happens you can bet organizations the US government would take over Windows), thus betting that MSVC won't go away is safe enough. If it doesn't work out your company is in trouble but so is everyone else. It is when you are betting on something less popular that you get into potential trouble as the thing you depend on can be canceled. Mingw isn't as good as MSVC, but if forced you could use it instead. Which means you have options and so a bet on closed source has a understandable worst case risk that is a lot better. Small close source projects like Circle C++ should be used either as a small experiment - if this fails you can rewrite everything in something open source in a few months and so the risk is low. There is one other common option (though I don't know what circle c++ offers): you can bet on circle C++ after your lawyers get a contract that if it becomes unavailable you get source code and rights so your worst case is you maintain it yourself. These contracts in business are made all the time, and so a good lawyer will have no problem getting the risk terms into a contract.
shaklee3 2y ago
Sean has said he would consider open sourcing it later, but doing so now would defeat the purpose of the project. He makes a lot of progress simply because he's but watching all the issues and prs in GitHub.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  There are plenty of open source projects that aren’t developed in the open and just throw a source tarball over the wall periodically. Lua for example.
  - shaklee3 2y ago
    Sure, but as soon as you put out source you're going to have suggestions/comments/criticisms/PRs/etc.
- shaklee3 2y ago
  That was supposed to say he's not watching.
nextaccountic 2y ago
The greatest value of Circle isn't in the compiler and tooling, it's in the design. Designing a C++ superset with Rust-like safety properties is hard. Once Circle gains traction, there's 110% chance that it gets reimplemented elsewhere. That said, I'm wholly uninterested in any proprietary language, too.
- wrsh07 2y ago
  It won't gain traction because it's not open source
pjmlp 2y ago
There is still a healthy C and C++ commercial compiler market, specially in embedded, high integrity computing and games.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
  Yes, but the whole value proposition of Circle is rewriting existing C++ libraries in safe C++. Because if not, you could "just" use Rust and call them from there. And without an open source compiler that won't happen, even if it would be free as in beer.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Regulation and certificed compilers also help to reach decisions.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    No, the value is you can use existing C++ with circle. Rust might be a great language, but if I have several million lines of C++ and I just want to work with a std::vector<MyCppClass> rust will have a lot of trouble.

steveklabnik 2y ago

I think it's more complicated than that, but I agree that it's a factor that would give some folks pause for currently adopting Circle.

jay-barronville 2y ago

In most cases, I’d probably agree with your point here, but in this case, I think you’re wrong. If Circle can truly accomplish its stated goals, the value proposition of a memory-safe superset of C++ is ginormous. Lots of companies with critical software written in C++ won’t care that Circle isn’t open-source as long as it ticks all of their boxes (certifications, audits, etc.) and they have a strong enterprise support story. This isn’t your average project.

nicce 2y ago
Even Ada is not that closed. But yeah, Ada proves that some will pay, a lot.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Enough that there are still seven vendors selling Ada compilers.
wrsh07 2y ago
I hope that's right, but I don't really get it. From a practical standpoint, when you run your tests with msan and asan (and if you have decent test coverage) I'm not convinced of the benefits of memory safety that eg rust provides Supposing that it is worth it though, why not migrate to rust? I have a friend starting a startup / consultancy to do just that, and it makes more sense than using circle. Even carbon says "if you can use rust, use rust not carbon"
- jay-barronville 2y ago
  > Supposing that it is worth it though, why not migrate to rust? I have a friend starting a startup / consultancy to do just that, and it makes more sense than using circle. Even carbon says "if you can use rust, use rust not carbon" A key selling point for Circle is the “superset of C++” aspect. What you’re proposing—while feasible for startups—is entirely unreasonable for larger companies, especially those with existing [usually massive] C++ codebases. With enough evangelizing, you might get them to agree to start using something like Rust in new, smaller, and internal projects. However, suggesting a rewrite of anything mission-critical that can directly impact the bottom line to an entirely different language, ecosystem, behaviors, guarantees, community, etc. is one of the most scary proposals you can make to a company. Are the existing engineers proficient in this new language? How long will it take to ramp up? Are there any new costs (not just financial) to adopting this new language (hint: there always are)? Are there legal concerns? How long will the rewrite take (hint: likely longer than the engineers think)? The list goes on. It’s simply too risky a proposition.
  - wrsh07 2y ago
    I don't believe your claim about migrating to rust being untenable. Primarily because I worked at Google where I've seen them migrate the codebase consistently through years of development and language updates. If an enormous company like Google can switch CPU architectures, change their numeric types, change out their hash maps, etc, then yes you can migrate to using a whole new language. (If Google thought this was impossible, why bother with carbon?) I say this confidently because I've worked directly with people doing this and seen their work. I will claim one better and say: you can migrate to idiomatic rust (with help from some custom libraries) Should companies do this? Depends on the industry and the needs for the kind of safety rust provides
- xmcqdpt2 2y ago
  The problem with testing is that you need a very large number of tests to cover a moderately complex piece of software: you need to test most branches obviously, but often you need to test combinations of behaviours such that 100% line testing is still not even close to enough testing. The advantage of compile time verification is that you can prove that certain paths and behaviours are impossible and don't need to be tested. This reduces the space of required tests combinatorially. We all already do that: no one bothers testing (for example) that standard library functions work correctly in their own code base. In Rust (and strongly typed languages in general) there are entire classes of test and assertions that aren't needed anymore.

dataflow 2y ago

Isn't MSVC closed source?

bluGill 2y ago
Yes, but there are several arguements in favor of MSVC that don't apply in general. MSVC is for and from the same people as Windows, Windows is large enough and popular enough that it isn't going away (Microsoft would have to die - and even if that happens you can bet organizations the US government would take over Windows), thus betting that MSVC won't go away is safe enough. If it doesn't work out your company is in trouble but so is everyone else. It is when you are betting on something less popular that you get into potential trouble as the thing you depend on can be canceled. Mingw isn't as good as MSVC, but if forced you could use it instead. Which means you have options and so a bet on closed source has a understandable worst case risk that is a lot better. Small close source projects like Circle C++ should be used either as a small experiment - if this fails you can rewrite everything in something open source in a few months and so the risk is low. There is one other common option (though I don't know what circle c++ offers): you can bet on circle C++ after your lawyers get a contract that if it becomes unavailable you get source code and rights so your worst case is you maintain it yourself. These contracts in business are made all the time, and so a good lawyer will have no problem getting the risk terms into a contract.

shaklee3 2y ago

Sean has said he would consider open sourcing it later, but doing so now would defeat the purpose of the project. He makes a lot of progress simply because he's but watching all the issues and prs in GitHub.

School-Cotton 2y ago
There are plenty of open source projects that aren’t developed in the open and just throw a source tarball over the wall periodically. Lua for example.
- shaklee3 2y ago
  Sure, but as soon as you put out source you're going to have suggestions/comments/criticisms/PRs/etc.
shaklee3 2y ago
That was supposed to say he's not watching.

nextaccountic 2y ago

The greatest value of Circle isn't in the compiler and tooling, it's in the design. Designing a C++ superset with Rust-like safety properties is hard. Once Circle gains traction, there's 110% chance that it gets reimplemented elsewhere. That said, I'm wholly uninterested in any proprietary language, too.

wrsh07 2y ago
It won't gain traction because it's not open source

pjmlp 2y ago

There is still a healthy C and C++ commercial compiler market, specially in embedded, high integrity computing and games.

ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
Yes, but the whole value proposition of Circle is rewriting existing C++ libraries in safe C++. Because if not, you could "just" use Rust and call them from there. And without an open source compiler that won't happen, even if it would be free as in beer.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Regulation and certificed compilers also help to reach decisions.
- bluGill 2y ago
  No, the value is you can use existing C++ with circle. Rust might be a great language, but if I have several million lines of C++ and I just want to work with a std::vector<MyCppClass> rust will have a lot of trouble.