Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt
-
@brainchild if you do research, try anything you like. But you develop products for a long term, @Chris-Kawa is right about sticking to long lasting programming languages.
-
@JoeCFD Perhaps you misread my meaning. I am not suggesting beginning a project at this moment written in Cppfront or Carbon. To my knowledge, doing so is not even possible, as neither is complete.
I believe C++ is problematic for most development occurring today. Code is slow to write and hard to maintain. I also believe such a view is quite widespread. The idea of a viable front end is compelling, though of course any success is yet to be proved.
D, Rust, and Go emerged from a desire to replace C++, but each is a new language in its own right, not one that integrates cleanly into a system already begun in C++.
To represent the concept, and its potential, I return to Vala and Kotlin. Most developers prefer the design of more recent languages, all else equal, and C++ is almost singular among programming languages for its verbosity and redundancy.
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
@brainchild Find anyone who has to maintain C++ C++/CLI C++/CX UWP hybrids to this day and ask how fun it is to deal with language evolutions that were too shiny to pass on. They were "just a little syntax sugar" too at the start.
Microsoft is notorious for reinventing the wheel, even if it makes one as a hexagon just to be different from a circular one. I think it is not helpful to make comparisons to projects developed by Microsoft.
-
@brainchild These guys are veterans. Their ideas are accumulated from experiences. Not bad! Have you seen a big company tried to rewrite their code in another language? If you are a manager, better to be careful when you select programming language.
-
@brainchild said:
Microsoft is notorious for reinventing the wheel
Sutter works at Microsoft and was part of a lot of those wheel reinventions.
I think it is not helpful to make comparisons to projects developed by Microsoft
Why not? Carbon is Google people, D is Meta people, Rust is Mozilla people... and cppfront is Herb, who is a Microsoft guy. Companies are not some abstract entities. They are made of people. The same people that create those languages.
Most developers prefer the design of more recent languages
That's kinda bold statement. Can you back it up?
C++ is almost singular among programming languages for its verbosity and redundancy
Yes and it is evolving to simplify. See modules or even a modern hello world:
import std; int main() { print("Hello world\n"); }That's not the same C++ you would write in '83. Got rid of preprocessor, include order problems, verbosity of streams, improved compile times etc. And those simplifications didn't require new language or new tools. Just hard work on existing.
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
Sutter works at Microsoft and was part of a lot of those wheel reinventions.
I think it is not helpful to make comparisons to projects developed by Microsoft
Why not? Carbon is Google people, D is Meta people, Rust is Mozilla people... and cppfront is Herb, who is a Microsoft guy. Companies are not some abstract entities. They are made of people. The same people that create those languages.'
Companies are made of people, and carry a further abstraction through history, culture, and convention that transcends any single person. If I worked at Microsoft, then surely I would work in a way different from how I would work at another company, or by myself, and surely any mistakes in my work, whether by my choice or another's, would be learning experiences.
Most developers prefer the design of more recent languages
That's kinda bold statement. Can you back it up?
Developers adopt newer languages because newer ones tend to resolve the problems of older ones, based on the experience that accumulated toward their creation.
C++ is almost singular among programming languages for its verbosity and redundancy
Yes and it is evolving to simplify.
Yes, but even so, the problematic characterizations remain overall largely the same. We still have a big mess with headers, class names prefixing function names in definitions, and the fake function definitions for templates placed in header files.
-
@brainchild said:
Companies are made of people, and carry a further abstraction
So you're saying we should discard anything we can learn from mistakes of companies because there's no single name to pin them on? That's a weird attitude. I disagree. Big tech companies create big tech we all use every day. That's, by far, the largest pool of experiences to learn from.
Developers adopt newer languages because newer ones tend to resolve the problems of older ones
Not in my experience. The way I've seen it in my career people usually switch because their manager/lead went to a conference or read a LinkedIn post and got the bug. People that do actual work have to deal with the realities of life and the fallout for years - transition, compatibility, tooling woes, growing pains, evolution beyond basic "let's improve syntax" ideas, while those decision makers move on to the new shiny every few months when those problems become too much to handle.
We still have a big mess
Yes, we can't clean everything up in an instant. What's your point? Throw away 40 years of evolution because you don't like class name in front of a method or some other style bit? Seriously? What's next? New language because ; is not optional like in "modern" languages and it confuses Python programmers?
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
Companies are made of people, and carry a further abstraction
So you're saying we should discard anything we can learn from mistakes of companies because there's no single name to pin them on? That's a weird attitude. I disagree. Big tech companies create big tech we all use every day. That's, by far, the largest pool of experiences to learn from.
Not even slightly.
I am saying each company has a culture that affects what is done inside of it, separate from the choices or preferences of any single member.
If I worked on a failed project for a company that had a certain culture, I might like the opportunity to try again, free from that culture, and also learning from the mistakes.
Developers adopt newer languages because newer ones tend to resolve the problems of older ones
Not in my experience. The way I've seen it in my career people usually switch because their manager/lead went to a conference or read a LinkedIn post and got the bug. People that do actual work have to deal with the realities of life and the fallout for years - transition, compatibility, tooling woes, growing pains, evolution beyond basic "let's improve syntax" ideas, while those decision makers move on to the new shiny every few months when those problems become too much to handle.
I understand. Some developers may use a language for reasons not one's own. Many developers prefer newer languages, however, for being more elegant and expressive.
We still have a big mess
Yes, we can't clean everything up in an instant. What's your point? Throw away 40 years of evolution because you don't like class name in front of a method or some other style bit? Seriously? What's next? New language because ; is not optional like in "modern" languages and it confuses Python programmers?
My point is we have a mess, and much of that mess is addressed by projects such as Cppfront. Such is largely the reason I personally might like to see it succeed. C++ itself may also address some of the mess in the future, if possible. In either case evolution would be occurring continuously, not discarded.
-
@brainchild said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
Many developers prefer newer languages, however, for being more elegant and expressive.
Did you ever worked in a company which had real projects?
Your sentence may be true for hobby stuff or a very small percentage of companies.
How will you even add a new language in a 20-year old product? Do you really think you can convince the manager that switching to a new shiny programming language will solve all your problems with the old code? Where do you live??? -
@brainchild said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
Two projects recently have emerged
I like to also include Jakt in this list. Not familiar with it myself, but interesting due to the people that are working on it.
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
As a pure syntax nitpick, how is auto main() -> int(Carbon) or main: () -> int =(cppfront) an improvement over int main()???
You picked the by far simplest example and the difference is just splitting hairs. Where it becomes more interesting is when (if) this idea of being able to read from left to right always can be applied to much more tricky syntax. (no, not going to repeat the examples here, DYOR).
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
Is owned by a single person. Has that ever turned out good?
To be fair, he has Microsoft behind him.
Anyway, Chris may disagree and try to convince people to not innovate. That is his right.
Ironically this topic of C++ transpiled languages got attention the other day because or severe problems in the industry. Problems that at least in part are due to the problems most of those projects are trying to solve. So, I don't care that Chris dislikes one guy and his repo. Or even dislikes Microsoft as a whole. As long as the research is done in the open and the code is available in an appropriate license, then we all benefit.
In the end the industry will use such a transpiled language or it won't. And more choice is good, competition of ideas is good, because then the chance is, usage is going to be more based on merit than on reputation.
To give my 2 cents on the initial question. I think its too early days to consider how this affects Qt or Qt using developers.
ps. first and probably last message on this thread, seems this is a hot topic ;-)
-
@TomZ said:
Chris may disagree and try to convince people to not innovate
That's just harmful exaggeration, please don't assume such things. Innovate away, by all means. I'm not against progress. I just don't believe that's it and I don't particularly look forward to cleaning up after this mess (by which I mean work in those hybrid workspaces if they do emerge), but have at it, I'll live.
So, I don't care that Chris dislikes one guy and his repo
I think you did grew to care a little bit, and I appreciate it :) I don't dislike the guy. Like I said in the other thread - he's a great presenter, community builder, facilitates a lot of work that is being done in the C++ space and does a lot of good work educating via blogs and whatnot. I just don't like the direction he's been trying to push C++ for the longest time, or the multitude attempts at replacing it with what I consider destructive processes and lesser options. I think it's misguided, fragmenting and harmful long term. Sure it's cool to play around with, like any tech is to me, but I just don't appreciate all that cheerleading that is currently happening around it. It's just a very limited toy, hyped up to high heavens, not a solution to all problems of C++, like some deem it to be.
I'm not chaining myself to a tree or anything like that. Do whatever you want. You asked about opinions in that other thread so I answered. OP asked the same here so I responded. If you don't want to see me talking about it that's fine. I'm a bit annoyed and tired of the topic anyway, so I probably will shut up if it reappears.
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
@TomZ said:
Chris may disagree and try to convince people to not innovate
That's just harmful exaggeration, please don't assume such things. Innovate away, by all means. I'm not against progress.
The characterization may seem to you as inaccurate, but from the other side, it has seemed at times you have sought to throw down any objection simply to avoid conceding any merit to newer approaches.
At one point it has come across that new languages tend to be adopted simply because managers overestimate their promise and impose them on developers. At another point, that the whole world must forever carry the burden of every old project firmly established in a particular language.
It has been hard to pull out any central theme, other than a bid to preserve the status quo.
Yet, one observation remains without controversy. C++ is tedious.
On one hand, it has accumulated decades of experience over the problem of merging constructs such as classes and generics with near-perfect run time optimization and type safety. On the hand, it has left developers with a level of verbosity that leaves them expending more effort fighting tools than taking advantage of the various kinds of higher-order constructs. Fixing build errors in nested templates is hardly among the more joyful experiences a developer can imagine.
The question I put to you is whether you more strongly object to the principle of building a compatible grammar, from scratch, in a modern context, or whether you more strongly seek to find problems in every particular attempt to do so.
Put another way, if you were asked to consider how to design an entirely new grammar, compatible with the old at each stage of use, but otherwise unburdened by legacy, would you think it possible to create one substantially more appealing than the current, enough so that developers might benefit from using it? If so, perhaps energies are more wisely spent advising existing efforts, instead of objecting to them, more usefully directed toward unifying the community, instead of complaining over fragmentation.
For my part, I return to the original thought experiment that prompted my question. Suppose someone wished to write a completely new application, using Qt, but felt deterred by the verbosity of C++, after recent experience writing in newer, lighter, and freer languages. Would a viable approach, if one were readily available, be of using a solution similar to Cppfront? Could one solution become a mainstream approach for resolving dilemmas of such kind?
-
@brainchild You keep exaggerating like I'm some comic book villain. It's kinda funny but you know... doesn't help ;)
simply to avoid conceding any merit to newer approaches.
I don't avoid anything. I just don't see any merit. What do you want me to say? Something nice about it to sound more toned? Sure - the freedom is nice. It's creative fun to invent stuff with no baggage. I had a course in school where we invented our own languages. Fun.
It has been hard to pull out any central theme, other than a bid to preserve the status quo.
Just so you know - the feeling about central theme is mutual :) I might seem all over the place because I see problems with that approach all over it. I don't know how to be brief about it, I do admit that.
Yet, one observation remains without controversy. C++ is tedious.
Another bold statement without backing. You find it tedious. That we can agree on. I find it sporadically slightly annoying, yet acceptable for the benefits it brings me. Others will have their opinions. I suggest you don't appropriate them without consultation.
it has left developers with a level of verbosity that leaves them expending more effort fighting tools than taking advantage of the various kinds of higher-order constructs
Again - that's not universal. You might have that experience. You may know others that do too. It's not everyone. Others will have varying experiences. I for one spend a lot more time designing and implementing software than fighting tools. Speaking of tools - I'd like more of those, not more syntax to deal with.
Fixing build errors in nested templates is hardly among the more joyful experiences a developer can imagine
Why do you nest templates then? Just don't do it. I know old hackers that barely ever write templates beyond generic containers. They are happy, their code is simple and understandable. Heck, almost entire Qt is like that and it's fine. Why do difficult stuff and complain that it's difficult? Use when they help. Don't when they get in the way.
The question I put to you is whether you more strongly object to any attempt to build a compatible grammar, from scratch, in a modern context, or whether you more strongly seek to find problems in every particular attempt to do so.
Can I take door number three or are those two molds you created for me my only choice?
Put another way, if you were asked to consider how to define an entirely new grammar, compatible with the old at each stage of use, but otherwise unburdened by any legacy, would you think it possible to create one considerably more appealing than the current, enough so that developers might benefit from using it?
Oh, I think it's entirely possible to create better grammar and it's not really that hard. I just think grammar is maybe 1% of the problem and solving that 1% by reinventing everything creates a ton of, far more serious, problems that only add to the existing ones. Grammar is detail. We need big picture thinking. What is grammar going to fix if current day programmer is asking "how do i make button go click"? You think slightly better syntax is gonna make them suddenly write perfect nested generics and wonderful safe code? Hah, dream on.
feeling repulsed by the verbosity of C++ (...) Would a viable approach, in principle, be of using a solution similar to Cppfront?
I'd say a better approach would be to change career. Why on Earth are you doing something that repulses you as your job? That's not healthy. Not joking here, seriously. Go with the lighter languages that you like. Everybody wins and lives happily.
I don't like garbage collected languages for example, so I don't work with them. I don't try to "evolve" Java into something I prefer. I don't like watching sport so I don't do it. I'm not gonna try to reinvent soccer for everyone because I don't find it attractive.
I don't mind C++. It has flaws, sure. Some are fixable, some not. Evolution is happening, some simply can't due to legacy concerns. I'm fine with the pace the language is changing.Could one solution become a mainstream approach for resolving dilemmas of such kind?
Personally I don't believe in "one size fits all" solutions. Notice how people happily point out how different C++ is from other languages and yet they try to apply the same principles to evolving it. It's not Kotlin, It's not F#. It's not TypeScript. It is a different language. It has different concerns, problems and different way forward. It has 4 decades of legacy code, often with massive tech debt. It has enormous ecosystem of tooling and infrastructure. Standing the syntax on its head is not a solution. It's fuel to the fire.
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
I don't avoid anything. I just don't see any merit.
I meant not to give an accusation, only a suggestion of how your position may look from the other side, given the way it was presented.
Yet, one observation remains without controversy. C++ is tedious.
Another bold statement without backing.
I think it is not widely controversial, but yes, I understand, not universal.
Even in the earliest days, the syntax for abstract methods was at least a source of amusement.
Fixing build errors in nested templates is hardly among the more joyful experiences a developer can imagine
Why do you nest templates then?
The types are determined by the application objectives. Applications are diverse in their requirements, and the language ought to be a tool more than a burden for as many cases as possible.
Go with the lighter languages that you like. Everybody wins and lives happily.
I don't like garbage collected languages for example, so I don't work with them.
I'm fine with the pace the language is changing.
Personally I don't believe in "one size fits all" solutions.
I think the point is being lost, that historically, in order to create a build target fully compatible with one generated by a C++ compiler, it would be necessary to write source in the C++ grammar. The constraint has proved limiting in many cases, and an alternative grammar, not bound to a new build system in its own right, but neither bound to any legacy syntax, would be welcomed by many. The objective might be to converge on a consensus for a definition of such an alternative grammar.
I think memory management is a red herring. It appears to be an interest of the author, as discussed previously at length, but is not embedded in the concept of the alternative grammar.
Rather, there is value is a different grammar compatible with the same build targets. It is the reason Kotlin is being used in places where the choice would have previously been Java, to create applications or libraries targeted for the JVM.
I think the concept of a "second" C++ grammar is compelling, though only a second. Having a third, fourth, fifth, and so on, all competing against each other, would defeat the purpose, of a community of developers readily able to contribute to each others' projects.
-
@brainchild said:
I think the concept of a "second" C++ grammar is compelling, though only a second.
What measures will stop anyone from inventing third when the second stops being considered sufficiently modern? I don't want to deal with four, three or two in single code base. One already has problems, as you eagerly point out, so what's compelling about multiplying that? Are you maybe tricking yourself into thinking that this new one will be somehow perfect and final? Because it won't, that I can assure you of.
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
@brainchild said:
I think the concept of a "second" C++ grammar is compelling, though only a second.
What measures will stop anyone from inventing third when the second stops being considered sufficiently modern?
It is a collective choice, of the community. Plainly, anyone may at any time promote a personal project, but your objections are taking the form of a "slippery slope" or of "all or none".
There is an unmet need, in my view, that may be met by an alternative grammar. The ability for any project to meet that need would diminish if there would be many competitors but no clear leader. Therefore, it may be in the general interest to develop one, and only one, alternative grammar, through a broad consensus, sufficiently different from the current to solve the problems that have prompted its creation, but without fragmenting in every direction over trivial differences.
Internal fighting is a problem that may occur, at times. So is complacency or stagnancy.
I don't want to deal with four, three or two in single code base. One already has problems, as you eagerly point out, so what's compelling about multiplying that? Are you maybe tricking yourself into thinking that this new one will be somehow perfect? Because it won't, that I can assure you of.
Comments of such kind are those that make it seem as though your mindset is of stifling innovation or progress.
The idea is a single alternative, imperfect, yet still favorable for projects seeking more rapid development and more expressive code, compared to any possible through C++, while preserving complete compatibility.
By the way, it why have you inserted the phrase "in a single code base"? Would not each project choose one or the other?
-
@brainchild said:
Comments of such kind are those that make it seem as though your mindset is of stifling innovation or progress.
I don't know why you keep saying that and I wish you would stop. I'm all for evolving C++ and enjoy a lot of its evolution that already took place. I'm not keen on inventing new languages that dress themselves as C++ to gain traction. That is not being against progress. Reinvention is not the only way to make progress.
while preserving complete compatibility
The repo says it on the front page metaclasses, runtime reflection and arena based garbage collection are all planned features. This language starts as C++ syntax 2, because otherwise it would be completely unattractive, but has very little intention on staying that way and is not shy about it.
Would not each project choose one or the other?
No, because very few projects in real world are new. Most of code out there is legacy, sometimes decades old. There's absolutely no rewriting the world so hybrids are the only way to even attempt that.
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
I'm not keen on inventing new languages that dress themselves as C++ to gain traction. That is not being against progress. Reinvention is not the only way to make progress.
I think the purpose is very different, though. I gave a use case, several times, which I find helpful to consider. It is quite the same as writing a GTK application in Vala instead of C.
while preserving complete compatibility
The repo says it on the front page metaclasses, runtime reflection and arena based garbage collection are all planned features. This languages starts as C++ syntax 2, because otherwise it would be completely unattractive, but has very little intention on staying that way and is not shy about it.
It may be not quite accurate to infer that they are planned. Are you referring to the phrase "not yet implemented"? I believe there is ambiguity.
I think it is fair to object that an alternative grammar for C++ should be separated from a run time engine. I think much of the doubtfulness follows from the enthusiasm for the developer to integrate his own external interests, of augmenting applications with a run time system. However, I still ask you to consider the question of grammar itself.
Metaprogramming is a different matter, compared to run time processing. Frameworks such as Qt rely on preprocessors, in other words, build processes external to the standard tool chain. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider some syntax for addressing such limitations.
-
@brainchild said:
I believe there is ambiguity.
Hah, don't stop believing :) Meanwhile in the real world...
I think much of the doubtfulness follows from the enthusiasm for the developer to integrate his own external interests
Well it is his language under his sole control, so what else do you expect to happen? There's no committee or anyone stopping him from anything. It's his repo.
However, I still ask you to consider the question of grammar itself.
I'm not interested in rhetorical. I already said a better grammar is possible. So what? It means nothing. Solves nothing. Write a perfect grammar and then what? How would you apply it to legacy code? And if you don't, well, as I said - hybrids, which are worse than the original problem. I don't see plausible anyone rewriting boost, DirectX, zlib, Qt or openssl in syntax 2. Do you? Hybrids, hybrids everywhere (to quote a meme).
Frameworks such as Qt rely on preprocessors. (...) Perhaps it would be helpful to consider some syntax for addressing such limitations
It is already happening in the C++ language itself. No need for cppfront.
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Cppfront, Carbon, and Qt:
@brainchild said:
I believe there is ambiguity.
Hah, don't stop believing :) Meanwhile in the real world...
You can be cynical, if you want. Perhaps your doubts will be vindicated, but I am not seeing them as helpful or robust at this moment.
Well it is his language under his sole control, so what else do you expect to happen? There's no committee or anyone stopping him from anything. It's his repo.
I would not ask the whole community to adopt a language under the private control of an individual, but neither would I ask it to reject the possibility that a language eventually moved under a broader public governance may begin as an individual's project. It is common for an idea to be proved on a small and private scale, to gain traction, and then to be moved to public ownership.
At any rate, Python in some sense is controlled by one individual, who is often called, literally, its "benevolent dictator for life". It is not ideal, by my likes, but neither has it stopped Python from becoming a popular and credible language.
Solves nothing.
For the record, do you believe the same of Vala and Kotlin?
Write a perfect grammar and then what?
Again, no one invoked the term "perfect", except you.
How would you apply it to legacy code? And if you don't, well, as I said - hybrids, which are worse than the original problem.
I think the general case would be that a particular module, component, library, or application would tend to be written in one or the other, following an overall plan, with compatibility of compiled libraries as well as particular regions within the broader project.
Mixing languages is common in large projects... Python and C, C++ and QML, and so on.
You might imagine (to repeat myself yet again) a graphical application written in an alternative syntax of C++, but built on Qt, just as one might be written in Vale, meaning it would be built over GObject and Glib.
I don't see plausible anyone rewriting boost, DirectX, zlib or openssl in syntax 2. Do you?
No, obviously. Why do you mention it?
Frameworks such as Qt rely on preprocessors. (...) Perhaps it would be helpful to consider some syntax for addressing such limitations
It is already happening in the C++ language itself. No need for cppfront.
Great. Good to know. Obviously I don't have this knowledge, at the current moment.
