←back to thread

155 points samuell | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kjksf ◴[] No.44749375[source]
I think this page describes "what" but not "why" of Carbon.

Carbon exists so that it's possible to migrate a large C++ code base, like Chrome, from C++ to something saner, incrementally.

The most important attribute of Carbon is not the specifics of the syntax but the fact that it's designed to be used in a mixed C++ / Carbon code base and comes with tooling to convert as much of C++ as possible to Carbon.

That's what makes Carbon different from any other language: D, Zig, Nim, Rust etc.

It's not possible to port a millions line C++ code base, like Chrome, to another language so large C++ projects are stuck with objectively pretty bad language and are forced to continue to use C++ even though a better language might exist.

That's why Carbon is designed for incremental adoption in large C++ projects: you can add Carbon code to existing C++ code and incrementally port C++ over to Carbon until only Carbon code exists.

Still a very large investment but at least possible and not dissimilar to refactoring to adopt newer C++ features like e.g. replacing use of std::string with std::string_view.

That's why it's a rational project for Google. Even though it's a large investment, it might pay off if they can write new software in Carbon instead of C++ and refactor old code into Carbon.

replies(14): >>44749770 #>>44750227 #>>44750232 #>>44750657 #>>44751685 #>>44751728 #>>44752039 #>>44752523 #>>44752948 #>>44753844 #>>44754061 #>>44756351 #>>44758133 #>>44758430 #
omoikane ◴[] No.44752523[source]
> I think this page describes "what" but not "why" of Carbon.

Maybe the page was updated recently, but there is a "why" link near the top:

https://docs.carbon-lang.dev/#why-build-carbon

What I would like to see is more documentation on the "why not" that summarizes why other languages and proposals are not sufficient. For example, Safe C++ proposal[1] appears to satisfy all requirements, but I can't find any reference to it.

[1] https://safecpp.org/draft.html

replies(2): >>44753054 #>>44754785 #
1. chandlerc1024 ◴[] No.44753054[source]
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 last few years of developments.

FWIW, the biggest challenge with Safe C++ is that WG21 rejected[1] that direction. And it was developed without building a governance model or way to evolve outside of WG21, and so doesn't seem to have a credible path forward.

[1]: FWIW, some members of WG21 don't agree with this characterizationp, but both the author's impression and the practical effect was to reject the direction.

replies(1): >>44753425 #
2. tialaramex ◴[] No.44753425[source]
To your footnote, this has been a constant refrain from WG21. One of the biggest achievements from yourself and many others was getting WG21 to explicitly reject P2137 the "Goals and priorities" paper rather than dithering and refusing to commit as happened for "Safe C++" and for the ABI paper.

I believe that getting WG21 to actually say "No" was very useful to have non-technical leadership people understand that C++ can't be the solution they need.