justcuriousab

But standardization also matters for avoiding vendor lock-in, right?

Like, Python and Javascript both have many "implementations", and those are some of the most popular languages. Python does not have an ISO specification. But Javascript does have an Ecma standard, ECMAScript.

Rust is getting another implementation in the form of gccrs. And there is work on a specification for Rust https://rustfoundation.org/media/ferrous-systems-donates-fer... . Arguably not a standard, but still helpful.

But Safe C++ and Circle are different languages, right? And Circle is not the same as the Safe C++ proposal that was submitted, right? There are presumably differences between them, and I do not know what those differences are, and I do not know if those differences were documented somewhere. I cannot find any occurrences of "reference implementation" in the Safe C++ draft.

I wonder if the guarantees could be amended, considering the reactions from the Rust community.

But the changes required are generally significantly smaller and less frequent, right?

I am trying to run Carbon in Godbolt.

Printing as in the example from Carbon's Github repository, does not work. 'Print("Test");' gives a complaint about not finding 'Print'.

Did Safe C++ ever have a full, correct, fully compliant, reference implementation, or was there only (closed-source) Circle as some kind of reference implementation? Circle, as far as I know, is closed-source.

Float matching in Rust is not supported due to correctness concerns, but due to historical accidents and backwards compatibility.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41620#issuecomment-...

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84045#issuecomment-82...

> 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.

One good aspect about C++ is its backwards compatibility or stability. Also a drawback, but companies not having to spend huge amounts of time, expertise and money rewriting their whole codebases all the time is something they appreciate.

Rust is often somewhat stable, but not always.

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/type-inference-breakage-in...

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127343

300 comments on Github.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/332176

Rust has editions, but it's a feature that it will probably take years to really be able to evaluate.

What kind of compatibility story will Carbon have? What features does it have to support compatibility?

> If WG21 were handling Rust instead f64 would implement Ord, and people would just write unsafe blocks with no explanation in the implementation of supposedly "safe" functions. Rust's technology doesn't care but their culture does.

But Rust allows pattern matching on floats.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Rust Zulip is C++ WG21 confirmed?

Is there a compiler, maybe an online one, for Carbon, or some way to compile and run Carbon code? And if not, what are the plans for that?