There’s been plenty of interop options between C++ and just about anything for decades. If languages like D, that made it piss easy, weren’t gonna change people’s minds, nothing can. Ditching C++ is the only way forward.
Unfortunately, I don’t think D is good enough to prove your point. From your follow-up comment:
A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted,
As someone who uses D, I can attest that it is not what everyone wanted; at least not yet. Several of its appealing features quickly turn it into a noisy language, error messages are often so mystifying as to be useless (especially when templates and/or contracts are in play), and Phobos (the standard library) is practically made of paper cuts. Despite all the great things in the language, the ergonomics around actually using it are still mediocre at best.
Also, D is an entirely different language from C++, and as such, would require code rewrites in order to bring safety to existing projects. It’s not really comparable to a C++ extension.
I’m a bit surprised that it’s supposed to be this bad, given that Mozilla uses it in Firefox and there’s the whole CXX toolchain.
Granted, Rust was not designed from the ground up to be C+±like, but I’m really not sure that’s a good idea anyways.
Wanting bug-free programs without wanting functional programming paradigms is a bit like:
Of course, if we’re able to migrate a lot of old C++ codebases to a slightly better standard relatively easily, then that is still something…
I gave C++ and D as an example. A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted, something like Java/C#, but with no compromise and direct bindings to C/C++. And why I’m more apologetic to the idea of something more drastically different like Rust as opposed to another touched up clone of C.
There’s been plenty of interop options between C++ and just about anything for decades. If languages like D, that made it piss easy, weren’t gonna change people’s minds, nothing can. Ditching C++ is the only way forward.
Unfortunately, I don’t think D is good enough to prove your point. From your follow-up comment:
As someone who uses D, I can attest that it is not what everyone wanted; at least not yet. Several of its appealing features quickly turn it into a noisy language, error messages are often so mystifying as to be useless (especially when templates and/or contracts are in play), and Phobos (the standard library) is practically made of paper cuts. Despite all the great things in the language, the ergonomics around actually using it are still mediocre at best.
Also, D is an entirely different language from C++, and as such, would require code rewrites in order to bring safety to existing projects. It’s not really comparable to a C++ extension.
Interop between Rust and C++ is pretty bad actually - I can understand wanting to avoid that.
However I still agree. I can’t see opt-in mechanisms like this moving the needle.
I’m a bit surprised that it’s supposed to be this bad, given that Mozilla uses it in Firefox and there’s the whole CXX toolchain.
Granted, Rust was not designed from the ground up to be C+±like, but I’m really not sure that’s a good idea anyways.
Wanting bug-free programs without wanting functional programming paradigms is a bit like:
Of course, if we’re able to migrate a lot of old C++ codebases to a slightly better standard relatively easily, then that is still something…
I gave C++ and D as an example. A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted, something like Java/C#, but with no compromise and direct bindings to C/C++. And why I’m more apologetic to the idea of something more drastically different like Rust as opposed to another touched up clone of C.