Carbon isn't even a real language, no real language will spent 4 entire years and is still stuck in version 0.0.0-0. It feels more like bad Rust than a proper C++ successor at all.
Just to give you a small example? why would a C++ successor language use `fn main()` instead of using C/C++ style `int main()`? And their generics system is even more confusing, are they going to support a new form of generics or are they sticking with templates? And if they are going to add templates, why would they not add pretty much one of the best additions to modern C++ to Carbon, concepts?
> why would a C++ successor language use `fn main()` instead of using C/C++ style `int main()`
Apparently easier and faster parsing. Most modern language have arrived at the `fn bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType` form and I don't think they made that decision for purely aesthetical reasons.
> Most modern language have arrived at the `fn bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType` form and I don't think they made that decision for purely aesthetical reasons.
Not just modern, it's older than you think. Pascal function definition is `function bla(arg: ArgType): ResultType;`
> no real language will spent 4 entire years and is still stuck in version 0.0.0-0.
Strongly disagree. I too thought that it would be easy to implement a new language in 1-2 years. I started the current Quxlang codebase (under a different name) on Dec 27, 2022. In 2026, hundreds of commits and hundreds of thousands of lines of code later, I still don't have a feature complete language.
I also rewrote the syntax, mainly because C++ parsing is a nightmare... Although my choice was very different...
Just to give you a small example? why would a C++ successor language use `fn main()` instead of using C/C++ style `int main()`? And their generics system is even more confusing, are they going to support a new form of generics or are they sticking with templates? And if they are going to add templates, why would they not add pretty much one of the best additions to modern C++ to Carbon, concepts?