New competitor to D

[ryuukk_]

On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 13:31:00 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 13:09:03 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
>> Throwing C is the worst one can do
>
> Because? There is nothing particularly interesting about C, 
> except very poor typing.


Because there is code still written in C, and rewriting it is not 
worth it, languages able to play nice with C gets ahead (C++, GO 
with cgo for example, they were able to kickstart a lot of their 
projects, and our beloved D too ;))



> Besides, they already did this, you cannot increment pointers 
> for instance.
>
>
>> Throwing C++ too is not the right way to go
>
> Well, they did this too. They interop with it, but they do it 
> in such a way that they have the option to phase it out in a 
> later version, if my reading between the lines is correct.
>


That's the thing i mention, being able to consume it to then eat 
it and get rid of it, most languages are stuck at the consume it 
part, Go managed to get past it


>> The proper way to do is following Kotlin's success, embracing 
>> it to then do your own thing
>
> Kotlin's success is Android, but the JVM environment is a 
> completely different setting.
>
> I guess you could say this is like Objective-C/Swift, but I 
> suspect that Apple will phase out Objective-C eventually.


Kotlin is also phasing out Java/JVM by focusing on Kotlin Native 
for sharing code between Android/iOS and they are working on 
their WebAssembly compiler; completly phasing out JVM, notice the 
pattern ;)

>> The problem is most languages can't get past "embracing C", 
>> and they are stuck with it
>
> C is a big bleeding wound in your type system.
>
>> I feel you guys put too much emotions in your analysis, same 
>> with Go
>
> In what way? I observe what they do, what they say and how the 
> wider programming community responds… There are no emotions 
> involved.


Maybe emotions wasn't the proper word, skepticism maybe, i don't 
know, it's an impression i have, Go have merits and i feel we 
downplay its success a little, we should learn from it


> What they have said is that Google has one team looking at 
> integrating C++ with Rust. Then they have the Carbon team going 
> the other way, from C++ towards something closer to Rust, and 
> this is experimental.
>
> At this stage, this probably is tagged as research and not 
> development, that is my guess. They put a lot of emphasis on 
> experimental, they would not do that if they had been allocated 
> 40+ developers. So I guess they have to prove that this is a 
> project that should move from research to development by 
> showing industry interest or something like that? It isn't 
> obvious that this is an initiative from high level managers, 
> probably the other way around, don't you think?

Exactly, i agree with you