♥ That's real fresh air and a strong sense of independence ! What a talented developer exhorting masses to be confident about the future of C++ and what it can deliver on safety and feature set without falling in the corporate trap of Jarbon, Jpp2 and Jala. Circle is C++ and deserves our attention and support as a community !
This is the only solution I can actually see working right now - but of course it'll need to go open source (apparently the end of this year) to ever catch on Yes I've heard of the official safety profiles Bjarne wants to implement but... 1. They're wishy washy at the moment (hopefully that changes). 2. Won't be in our hands for many years in a best case scenario 3. Bjarne won't even mention Rust explicitly and what it does well. If they have a plan to do something like that (which is what they imply with static analysis being used)- state what they like about it but that they want to do something without the same drawbacks, it'd be a lot more encouraging. If you can't look at the competition and ensure you're going in the right path to do better, it's easy to get ivory tower syndrome.
100% agree! Circle is the most promising development to ensure the future of C++. The "old guard", Bjarne, Herb, ISO C++ committee, need to embrace a new generation of ideas.
Cppfront is a cool effort, but this is way better. Why change language when you can just change/extend the language. Carbon is a bit of a joke when you have either C++ or Rust on the side
While I totally see this as how a research tool could work, I think this would be a nightmare in the commercial landscape. The standardization of C++ over the last 20ish years is the only thing that has made it possible for me to approach. I'm entirely willing to be wrong on this, but how does this not just splinter the c++ language into a thousand different dialects. Doesn't this make it even harder to teach?
Let me be clear. I like a lot of the ideas themselves, but I dislike the fact that any given set of code will now need to be prefixed by the long list of language features that have been enabled for this snippet. The worst case now is that you'd have to label #CPP20 #VS2023. in future this would explode.
It's clear that the person controlling the camera is not a programmer at all! Why that person is not showing the code and is showing the Sean, I'm not interested in Sean I'm interested in the piece of code!!!!! Put some programmer to control the camera !!
Until circle is open source I cant see how companies can trust writing any code which uses it as their complier Also, is this essentially only for application code? Can you add custom rules to the compiler? if i can, then im making my own dialect which i must now ship with the library? Do i then have a different compiler for each source file and hope for ABI compatability?
♥
That's real fresh air and a strong sense of independence ! What a talented developer exhorting masses to be confident about the future of C++ and what it can deliver on safety and feature set without falling in the corporate trap of Jarbon, Jpp2 and Jala.
Circle is C++ and deserves our attention and support as a community !
Revolutionary work🎉
Sean is a legend. Amazing work.
This is the only solution I can actually see working right now - but of course it'll need to go open source (apparently the end of this year) to ever catch on
Yes I've heard of the official safety profiles Bjarne wants to implement but...
1. They're wishy washy at the moment (hopefully that changes).
2. Won't be in our hands for many years in a best case scenario
3. Bjarne won't even mention Rust explicitly and what it does well.
If they have a plan to do something like that (which is what they imply with static analysis being used)- state what they like about it but that they want to do something without the same drawbacks, it'd be a lot more encouraging.
If you can't look at the competition and ensure you're going in the right path to do better, it's easy to get ivory tower syndrome.
100% agree! Circle is the most promising development to ensure the future of C++. The "old guard", Bjarne, Herb, ISO C++ committee, need to embrace a new generation of ideas.
@@Onyx-it8gkhave you guys checked cpp2/cppfront?
Could you share the slides?
+1 on the reference to Grendel av John Gardner
🙃 av = by (sorry that some swedish crept in there)
It'd be nice to have a feature that just disables the paren-initialization syntax for variables in favor of braced-initialization
Cppfront is a cool effort, but this is way better. Why change language when you can just change/extend the language. Carbon is a bit of a joke when you have either C++ or Rust on the side
What I got from that is Sean wants to rename Circle to Grendel. 🙂
Why is so much of the screen just the back of people's heads? Watchers of the video would like to be able to read the code on the slides.
wow
While I totally see this as how a research tool could work, I think this would be a nightmare in the commercial landscape.
The standardization of C++ over the last 20ish years is the only thing that has made it possible for me to approach.
I'm entirely willing to be wrong on this, but how does this not just splinter the c++ language into a thousand different dialects.
Doesn't this make it even harder to teach?
Let me be clear. I like a lot of the ideas themselves, but I dislike the fact that any given set of code will now need to be prefixed by the long list of language features that have been enabled for this snippet. The worst case now is that you'd have to label #CPP20 #VS2023. in future this would explode.
So they actually invent C++ 2.0 or C++++ ?
It's clear that the person controlling the camera is not a programmer at all! Why that person is not showing the code and is showing the Sean, I'm not interested in Sean I'm interested in the piece of code!!!!! Put some programmer to control the camera !!
Until circle is open source I cant see how companies can trust writing any code which uses it as their complier
Also, is this essentially only for application code? Can you add custom rules to the compiler? if i can, then im making my own dialect which i must now ship with the library? Do i then have a different compiler for each source file and hope for ABI compatability?
A horrible idea. This way you create a ton of dialects of C++. This is a tower of Babel but for C++ community.
C++ is like that already