cafe-latte VS circle

Have you already evaluated cafe-latte?

This may interest you: cafe-latte. It's an implementation of CL's condition system (which has restarts) in Java.

Lack of macros makes nothing impossible, but also makes many things harder. I think of them as code generators, tiny compilers on a micro scale; they are invoked by the proper compiler during compilation phase, as opposed to runtime, allowing you to inject code that you'd otherwise need to inline by hand.

It's possible to write pretty complex things like control flow abstractions using just structures and functions/methods, e.g. a CL-esque condition system in Java which only uses classes, static methods, and Java lambdas[0] for its syntax. Possible, but also IMO ugly when compared to the CL counterpart, because the low-level but irrelevant details (such as instantiation via `new` or generics) are still presented to the programmer.

[0] https://github.com/phoe/cafe-latte

Condition system in Java: https://github.com/phoe/cafe-latte

phoe then said "Notice that no one mentions that this way they also managed to drag a lot of Lisp programmers about halfway back to C++."

Sean Baxter created a front end c++ compiler by himself, using llvm for the back end and the gcc or clang stl. I think it took him a couple of years. https://www.circle-lang.org/. Before this happened I heard a couple of different people claiming that there would never be a totally new compiler as it was too much work.

The real Typescript for C++ is Circle.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

Just like Typescript to JavaScript, the syntax is an evolution of what already exists, not a completely different syntax.

Sean Baxter's Circle [1] is arguably the spiritual successor to MOP.

[1] https://www.circle-lang.org/

Context: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Note that Circle is not an F/OSS compiler as someone pointed out before. This however doesn't make Circle less relevant, because it is actually a testament to show that C++ could have been much better without the claimed breakage. If Circle does provide a number of desirable features and its compiler can be built by a single person, then why shouldn't the committee do the same?

From all wannabe C++ replacements candidates, the only language that is really a TypeScript for C++, is Circle.

For whatever reason, Herb Sutter decided to ignore this language on the presentation.

https://www.circle-lang.org/

This is the only one with the syntax based on C++, incrementally changing the features via #pragma settings.

"Circle Fixes Defects, Makes C++ Language Safer & More Productive"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fxeNqSK2k

"Circle Evolves C++"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZDOGDMNLM

The second someone makes a successor language that seamlessly/directly interops with C++ _AND_ has the level of build/IDE tooling that C++/Rust have, I'm on board.

The closest thing right now is Sean Baxter's "Circle" compiler in "Carbon" mode IMO:

https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

Unfortunately, Circle is closed-source and there's no LSP or other tooling to make the authoring experience nice.

I read through the whole of https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/README.md and man, I'm drooling. Awesome work, kudos.

Have a look at Circle from Sean Baxter [0]. It's pretty impressive.

[0]: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...