3 ms·
> which one step after another fixes the problems of C++ Somehow, multiple groups of people have recently decided they want to "fix the problem": Carbon, Circl
by einpoklum 2y ago
> which one step after another fixes the problems of C++
Somehow, multiple groups of people have recently decided they want to "fix the problem": Carbon, Circle, CppFront2. But apparently, it's different fixes, and the formulation of the "the problem" is different.
I am wary of rushing to do this, considering the fate of the D, a previous attempt to "fix the problem" with C++.
- flohofwoe 2y agoAFAIK the big difference of Circle to both Carbon and CppFront2 is that Circle is (mostly?) a superset of C++17, so it doesn't change the basic syntax, just adds things on top. I don't care much either way tbh, just watching from the sidelines while happily churning out C and Zig code ;) But IMHO Sean Baxter does more for C++ than the entire committee ever did in the last three decades - if C++ would have moved into a similar direction I probably wouldn't have dropped it as my main language).
- fithisux 2y agoIt fixed the problem with C++ and in an exceptional way. Now with @live, even when GC is on, they are ahead of Rust. I love it.
- einpoklum 2y agoAn annoying but rather valid quip by Bjarne Stroustrup is that "there are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about, and the ones nobody uses." D has, statistically, not been attactive enough for people to switch to it from C++. Perhaps this is unfortuante... ? I wouldn't mind a link to an argument in favor of switching to (today's) D from (today's) C++.