New competitor to D

[Paulo Pinto]

On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 11:00:11 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 July 2022 at 18:15:22 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
>> But if everyone turns down every suggestions/discussions how 
>> can you create momentum?
>
> What is a needed is a plan with dependencies mapped out and 
> priorities assigned, and focused process, but the D evolution 
> history is more impulse driven and the planning aspect has been 
> vague… this is the most limiting factor at this point.
>
> In contrast Carbon has one, and primarily one, huge advantage: 
> they have a big internal business critical use case in Google 
> that will drive new features and tooling. Management will get 
> resources allocated to improve on the weak language spots as 
> they start to use Carbon internally (features driven by 
> internal demand). As such the evolution cannot follow impulses, 
> but has to be driven by plans (which will ensure steady 
> progress).
>
> It remains to be seen whether Carbon will be useful for small 
> projects or end up like Ada: too tedious to be used for small 
> and medium sized projects?
>
> It is very difficult to tell at this point, but there is some 
> arrogance in claiming to be a "C++ successor" at V0.1 and then 
> push a somewhat flawed ML/Rust/TypeScript mashup syntax and 
> less flexible semantics than C++.
>
> One big future problem for D is that Carbon has this huge 
> internal use case and most likely will get solid open source 
> tooling funded by Google and a bunch of tutorials written by 
> self-promoting bloggers.
>
> Today we have the situation that people look at C++, finds it 
> overwhelming, looks at Rust, finds it difficult to get into, 
> then looks at niche alternatives (Zig, D etc). With 3 major 
> system level languages I think many devs will stop looking 
> further when they have looked at the three major contenders and 
> just pick the one they find easier to deal with.
>
> This might be a good time to consider a D3 move.

The arrogance can be explained by being the same people that lost 
the C++ ABI vote at ISO, and since then ramped down their 
involvement either at ISO or clang further development.

https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/w2thvo/carbon_an_experimental_c_successor_language/igs25eu/

and also https://cor3ntin.github.io/posts/abi/

This is one of the reasons why clang is now third in ISO C++ 
support, and since no other compiler vendor that enjoys clang, 
seems willing to step into Apple (focused on Swift/Objective-C) 
or Google's previous roles, it doesn't look like it will change.

Meanwhile those previous clang contributors are now having fun 
tailoring Carbon as they wish instead of fighting for their 
papers at ISO.