7 ms·

I think the concept would look more like Rust. It is still compiled to machine code, not VM opcode. You do not need a VM and do not require a garbage collector,

I think the concept would look more like Rust. It is still compiled to machine code, not VM opcode. You do not need a VM and do not require a garbage collector, JIT, etc. which makes it suitable for more use cases. But: if it's a completely new language (no backward compatibility to C++) - why do we need this? Can't we just use one of those new languages that are already available (Rust, Zig, Odin, Nim, just to name a few).

roca 6y ago
The rational argument for what is being proposed is that companies with (total) hundreds of millions of lines of C++ code can migrate it incrementally and (hopefully) mostly mechanically as the language evolves ... which should be much cheaper and less risky than porting code to a new language. There are probably also strong non-rational components, e.g. C++ people would like to keep working on C++, leveraging their existing skills and status, rather than jump to another community.
santamarias 6y ago
> But: if it's a completely new language (no backward compatibility to C++) - why do we need this? Would backwards compatibility to "modern C++" make more sense than no backwards compatibility?
DangitBobby 6y ago
Those languages are all pretty different from C++, right? I'm assuming the new C++ would be very similar to old C++ with a bunch of things "considered harmful" removed.
- throwaway17_17 6y ago
  Well I’ve seen at least three recent CppCon talks where they say that ‘for’ loops are harmful and a template function should be used always, so I would hope there would not be a removal of these things, just a non-concern with requiring that changes don’t break the compilation of 10+ year old code.
jcelerier 6y ago
> Can't we just use one of those new languages that are already available what if you actually do like templates and class-based OOP ?
- The_rationalist 6y ago
  Then just use kotlin or C#? Generics > templates and are both class based in a much more ergonomic and uncluttered way than c++
pjmlp 6y ago
C# compiles to native code via MSIL. C++ compiles to native code via LLVM bitcode.
mihaaly 6y ago
people are so serious and literal nowadays! ;) (btw., since debate initiated, C++ standard attempts on garbage collection too - as well as on many powerful concepts incorporated into C# from here and there - and IL is compiled into machine code before execution, naturally, also making C# really had an intention of making a better but similar C/C++ without its crippling compatibility barriers towards improvements. C++ is more universal still - but considerably less than C - and it is all right, each have advantage here and there. You usually do not work on all use cases anyway! ;) No need to abandon backward compatibility with C++, abandoning will become a new language, we have quite a few already, it is done already!)

roca 6y ago

The rational argument for what is being proposed is that companies with (total) hundreds of millions of lines of C++ code can migrate it incrementally and (hopefully) mostly mechanically as the language evolves ... which should be much cheaper and less risky than porting code to a new language. There are probably also strong non-rational components, e.g. C++ people would like to keep working on C++, leveraging their existing skills and status, rather than jump to another community.

santamarias 6y ago

> But: if it's a completely new language (no backward compatibility to C++) - why do we need this? Would backwards compatibility to "modern C++" make more sense than no backwards compatibility?

DangitBobby 6y ago

Those languages are all pretty different from C++, right? I'm assuming the new C++ would be very similar to old C++ with a bunch of things "considered harmful" removed.

throwaway17_17 6y ago
Well I’ve seen at least three recent CppCon talks where they say that ‘for’ loops are harmful and a template function should be used always, so I would hope there would not be a removal of these things, just a non-concern with requiring that changes don’t break the compilation of 10+ year old code.

jcelerier 6y ago

> Can't we just use one of those new languages that are already available what if you actually do like templates and class-based OOP ?

The_rationalist 6y ago
Then just use kotlin or C#? Generics > templates and are both class based in a much more ergonomic and uncluttered way than c++

pjmlp 6y ago

C# compiles to native code via MSIL. C++ compiles to native code via LLVM bitcode.

mihaaly 6y ago

people are so serious and literal nowadays! ;) (btw., since debate initiated, C++ standard attempts on garbage collection too - as well as on many powerful concepts incorporated into C# from here and there - and IL is compiled into machine code before execution, naturally, also making C# really had an intention of making a better but similar C/C++ without its crippling compatibility barriers towards improvements. C++ is more universal still - but considerably less than C - and it is all right, each have advantage here and there. You usually do not work on all use cases anyway! ;) No need to abandon backward compatibility with C++, abandoning will become a new language, we have quite a few already, it is done already!)