New competitor to D

[ryuukk_]

On Monday, 25 July 2022 at 08:05:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Monday, 25 July 2022 at 02:56:53 UTC, Tejas wrote:
>> All the disinterest/lack of belief regarding Carbon's 
>> (potential)success is really making me think about Go, where 
>> people said something about it not having used any of the 
>> research in type theory since the 1970s, coupled with their 
>> insistence on not having generics, a stupid error handling 
>> system all combined to make it stand no chance in the future.
>>
>> But it's still popular today
>>
>> Maybe there's a non-trivial chance Carbon will end up the 
>> same? As we have already seen, it's not always about the 
>> technical merit.
>
> Well, Go has some key technical merits: solid GC, stable 
> non-breaking language, fast spinup time (compared to Java), 
> easy build process, web-centric standard library.
>
> So it is ok for smaller services that are to be maintained for 
> years and years. I don't think Go is a good language, but I am 
> also not able to point to another language that is more suited 
> for hosting micro-web-services.
>
> How does Carbon fit into this? By and large, slightly 
> higher-level than C++, yet potentially better performing.
>
> How can Carbon achieve this? By doing the opposite of D: 
> throwing out C.

Throwing C is the worst one can do

Throwing C++ too is not the right way to go

The proper way to do is following Kotlin's success, embracing it 
to then do your own thing

The problem is most languages can't get past "embracing C", and 
they are stuck with it

Carbon already on a poor start by having to predeclare everything

It's 0.1, so they have long way to go, but reading what their 
goals are and roadmap makes it clear that it's something with 
huge potential, for people with C++ codebases

I feel you guys put too much emotions in your analysis, same with 
Go