←back to thread

155 points samuell | 4 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 #
1. dazzawazza ◴[] No.44753844[source]
These are strong points and I think the methodology behind Carbon is the correct one. The elephant in the room is that once Google decide to drop Carbon my existing code base will be dependant on a dead technology and then I am screwed.

I find it hard to trust Google to maintain any software nor to write software that is maintainable by a community. They write software for themselves and themselves alone.

replies(2): >>44754032 #>>44754675 #
2. gituliar ◴[] No.44754032[source]
For me Go is a success story.
replies(1): >>44756743 #
3. ncruces ◴[] No.44754675[source]
Then wait for Google to adopt it at large?

If it (purportedly?) exists so that Google can move multi-million line code bases from C++ to something better bit-by-bit, because it's otherwise infeasible to do so, why would Google drop it after they have ported the first million?

You can simply wait to see if Chrome adopts it.

4. bbkane ◴[] No.44756743[source]
I'd say Dart/Flutter is as well