←back to thread

Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++

(docs.carbon-lang.dev)
155 points samuell | 4 comments | 31 Jul 25 14:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bananapub ◴[31 Jul 25 15:29 UTC] No.44746678[source]▶
[2022]
replies(1): >>44747045 #
1. Jtsummers ◴[31 Jul 25 16:06 UTC] No.44747045[source]▶
It's an ongoing project, specifying a date here wouldn't make much sense.
replies(1): >>44747717 #
2. bananapub ◴[31 Jul 25 17:09 UTC] No.44747717[source]▶
is there any news? the website has no information and doesn't really highlight anything other than their launch at a conference in 2022.
replies(2): >>44747945 #>>44748333 #
3. pjmlp ◴[31 Jul 25 17:29 UTC] No.44747945[source]▶
The information is scattered around the Wiki, LLVM and C++ related conferences.

Basically there should be a 1.0 somehow towards the end of 2026.

https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...

This is a talk from last year CppNorth, there should be one this year as well,

https://youtu.be/8SGMy9ENGz8?si=reukeBjxAOivX6qI

4. Jtsummers ◴[31 Jul 25 18:04 UTC] No.44748333[source]▶
Yes. pjmlp answered here, but before he posted his reply, nxobject commented with the roadmap which covers 2025 and beyond:

https://docs.carbon-lang.dev/docs/project/roadmap.html

Even on the submitted page, the oldest you could claim it represents is 2024. But I stand by my earlier remark. When linking to an active project's documentation or home page, unless it's to a specifically dated version of it, a date doesn't make sense. For instance, linking to something specific in Python 2.6 documentation, maybe add a date. But if it's just to python.org, it would be absurd to tag it with [1991].