chandlerc1024

7 ms·

1.
by chandlerc1024 9mo ago
FYI, we ended up implementing a _really_ nice SWAR version in the Carbon derivative of SwissTable that might be worth looking at for inspiration: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/
2.
by chandlerc1024 1y ago
In increasing order of volume of material: - Our newsletter / announcements via GitHub Discussions[1] email[2] or RSS[3] - The "Last Week in Carbon" posts via GitHub[4] or RSS[5] - The Discord server: https://disco
3.
by chandlerc1024 1y ago
We've been watching closely since before the name change. =D Had lots of conversations with several of the folks involved.
4.
by chandlerc1024 1y ago
> What _is_ interesting is that I get the impression that Carbon is being workshopped with the C++ community, rather than the wider PLT community -- I worry that they won't benefit from the broader perspectives that'll help it
5.
by chandlerc1024 1y ago
The reason the Safe C++ proposal wasn't mentioned is that it came years later. =] I'll see if it makes sense for us to update that section a bit, this probably isn't the only thing that we should refresh a bit to reflect the
6.
by chandlerc1024 1y ago
Source-to-source translation is definitely planned. We've even done some early experiments. But we need to get the language and interop into good shape to be able to thoroughly test and evaluate the migration.
7.
by chandlerc1024 2y ago
It was also called that. But it isn't that we're directly using this, but that definition checked generics are fairly similar to the ideas in that series of proposals, and that led to the generics in Swift. Also closely related to
8.
by chandlerc1024 2y ago
We played with some, but none stuck. A big goal was being short and easily pronounced, including by non-native English speakers, in a recognizable way from reading the text. That made the overwhelming majority of "fun" spellings n
9.
by chandlerc1024 2y ago
(Carbon lead for context) I think you're missing the point of the example in a major way... Personally, I care about finding ways to support a bunch of these other use cases where we can and in good ways. Especially things like build t
10.
by chandlerc1024 2y ago
(Carbon lead here) We tried other names, but we found collisions with essentially all of them. =/ We ended up picking a "least bad", and actually talked to a couple of folks familiar with the old usage to see if it was a wors
11.
by chandlerc1024 2y ago
"Chandler has explicitly said that he doesn't see a reason to solve data races." Er, the slide title says that solving this is highly desirable , just not a strict requirement for security purposes. Not sure how that's
12.
by chandlerc1024 2y ago
+100 btw. =D
13.
by chandlerc1024 2y ago
Yep, that's the plan.
14.
Carbon Language Newsletter, the Carbon Copy, February 2024(github.com)
2 points by chandlerc1024 3y ago|0 comments
15.
by chandlerc1024 3y ago
If you're going to create a dichotomy between two languages, I think we're dramatically closer to TypeScript. The whole point of Carbon is to integrate into and re-use an existing ecosystem of software written in C++. It's
16.
by chandlerc1024 3y ago
FWIW, I disagree about Carbon following the Dart plan (Carbon lead here). Carbon is following a plan much more analogous to Kotlin -- we even say that on our site very explicitly. The "subset" of C++ APIs you emphasize is only a
17.
by chandlerc1024 4y ago
It was made public at CppNorth, a C++ conference, earlier today. The page you mention is a bit out of date though, you can find the update to our plans here: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/commit&#x
18.
by chandlerc1024 4y ago
FWIW, our governance structure is here: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...
19.
by chandlerc1024 4y ago
(one of the Carbon leads) Success for the Carbon Language requires it to successfully be an independent and community driven project. We may not succeed (this really is an experiment), but we're working hard to engage broadly and ear
20.
by chandlerc1024 5y ago
At the very least, can check when the target isn't a basic block and thus it's a clear win. Will fix your case. I'm dubious about the whole thing though. Seems like it may day from when branching "down" vs. "up
21.
by chandlerc1024 6y ago
(disclaimer: I'm one of the authors of this) A bunch of comments seem to be comparing and contrasting CMake+Ninja vs. Bazel. Just my two cents, but I think that's missing the real point of this work. It isn't about whether Ba
22.
by chandlerc1024 6y ago
Test suite, without a doubt. Asking humans to be careful at scale (whether authoring or reviewing) just won't work. Keep in mind that you need loooooots of test suites, not just one.
23.
by chandlerc1024 7y ago
We're seeing the exploration of a new surface through speculative execution and related hardware techniques. There is basically a backlog of exploring this surface that researchers and security folks in industry are working to process.
24.
by chandlerc1024 7y ago
Short version: it passes a pointer to the pointer forcing a double indirection rather than a single. Simple attempts to fix don't really work. Not even sure an ABI break will be enough, but it would at least be a minimum requirement.
25.
by chandlerc1024 7y ago
I think it's hard to predict what a community will be interested in deep-diving to understand. And I'm not sure that HN is super representative of its interests either. The email was aimed at LLVM folks, not HN. I generally trust
26.
by chandlerc1024 7y ago
Just so we're completely clear, Google has been an incredibly long-term contributor to basically all parts of LLVM. So have sooooo many other companies. This is a really cool project IMO, but it doesn't represent a significant cha
27.
by chandlerc1024 7y ago
Either one looks completely fantastic, I assure you. I have helped people on my team write promotion packets in both forms. Both worked perfectly well.
28.
by chandlerc1024 7y ago
(as stated elsewhere, this effort is in my team at Google) FWIW, while I think libc is super important, and I'm really excited about this project and the opportunity it represents, I think the LLVM project and community is much larger
29.
by chandlerc1024 7y ago
Hi, full disclosure, it's my team working on this at Google FWIW, and the technical lead for much of Google's contributions to LLVM. When we asked the community if they were interested in us developing this in the open as part of
30.
by chandlerc1024 8y ago
Working closely with Intel and others on these issues I have seen zero evidence that anyone realized the security implications and shipped anyways. Zero evidence.

More ›