-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 269
-
With the talks on "A typescript for C++" etc., I initially assumed that cpp2 was a serious proposal. But most chatter (and LLMS) seem to indicate it's more a playground for testing out C++ proposals. Can we get some clarification?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
I appreciate your interest! Thank you. Cppfront is my personal project to try out ideas for simplifying C++ and feed those back into the ISO C++ process as potential evolution proposals that can be considered/accepted/rejected like anyone else's proposals. The "TS for C++" is intended as framing that includes both the approach (full fidelity compatibility) and the idea of contributing features back (as TS does to JS by participating in the Ecmascript committee). I don't have time or plans to support cppfront as a product, but I did relax the license to allow "as-is" production use if any brave soul did have some limited use they wanted to make of it.
Replies: 2 comments 3 replies
-
I'd like to also know the answer to this; I'd be more than willing to write something like a Tree-sitter grammar for syntax highlighting in editors among other tooling, but the 'experiment' framing discourages me from doing so, as I don't know if this project is going to stay around or not, and I personally don't have the skill set to maintain a fork or continuation of this project
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I appreciate your interest! Thank you. Cppfront is my personal project to try out ideas for simplifying C++ and feed those back into the ISO C++ process as potential evolution proposals that can be considered/accepted/rejected like anyone else's proposals. The "TS for C++" is intended as framing that includes both the approach (full fidelity compatibility) and the idea of contributing features back (as TS does to JS by participating in the Ecmascript committee). I don't have time or plans to support cppfront as a product, but I did relax the license to allow "as-is" production use if any brave soul did have some limited use they wanted to make of it.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
👍 3
-
Sorry for resurrecting this answer, but soes this mean that you would never consider pushing a second syntax as an official proposal? I understand the idea of using it to feedback ideas to the Cpp standard. But the main appeal of Cpp2 to me is the simplified and unified syntax. Maybe if there was someone else in the commitee who was willing to champion it?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
All these attempts to "fix" the language with a TypeScript-like counterpart for JavaScript are a waste of time. C++ is the new COBOL. The future belongs to Rust.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
@LouChiSoft A great deal of the benefit can be had without a second syntax so I'm focusing on those. I might propose a simplified syntax someday, but if I do then supporting this as a commercial implementation (a lot of work) likely should come first.
@Dimous The real waste of time is language wars. 😁 I have nothing against Rust. I don't think any reasonable person would have anything against any major useful (and widely used) modern language, now including Rust. Of course, no one is required to be reasonable. 🤷
Me, I'm a fan of data: Of the top-10 languages by #devs, the two fastest-growing by % are Rust and C++; for more see my March 2026 BeCpp talk, slide 4. Of the two, C++ has the larger denominator; the most recent year's growth in C++ #devs worldwide is about the total Rust #devs worldwide.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
👍 4 -
😄 1