crubit VS v

See also:

Thomas Neumann's current proposal for memory safe C++ using dependency tracking:

- https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p27...

Google's proposal for memory safety using Rust-like lifetime analysis:

- https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-lifetime-annotations-for-c/...

- https://github.com/google/crubit/tree/main/lifetime_analysis

For the people who are curious: crubit is an attempt to develop the way to seamlessly integrate C++ and Rust.

Please see the experimentation and proposals at https://github.com/google/crubit/blob/main/docs/lifetime_annotations_cpp.md and https://github.com/google/crubit/blob/main/docs/lifetimes_static_analysis.md

autocxx is good, though crubit is aiming for direct bidirectional interop

The areas you mentioned (CLI, web services, low level systems programming) are not mutually exclusive. Doing a good job on one doesn't mean something else is affected.

The folks who worked on the most popular command line argument parser (https://docs.rs/clap/latest/clap/#example) made a positive contribution that didn't detract from any other use case.

Similarly, the folks working on improving Rust for web services will also make it better for systems programming. In a blog post published today (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2022/07/27/keyword-ge...), they discuss keyword generics, a feature that will be equally helpful for `async` code and `const` functions evaluated at compile time.

There is already some interoperability with C++ (http://cxx.rs) and ongoing research into automating this interoperability (https://github.com/google/autocxx, https://github.com/google/crubit). Feels like there's enough effort

This language was started by folks at Google. (Although it's interesting that they're publishing it under a separate github org, which suggests ambitions beyond Google's needs.) Google has a huge, performance-sensitive C++ codebase. At Google, major product teams' backends are typically written in C++, as well as common infrastructure like D (disk server), Colossus (distributed filesystem), Spanner (distributed SQL database), and Borg (cluster management). More than a few people would love for it all to be be written in Rust instead, but migration would be challenging, to say the least. I'm told people are looking into it—see Crubit for example. But AFAIK, no one's decided yet whether Google will stay with C++ for all these things, migrate some to Rust, migrate some to Carbon, and/or do something else entirely.

It's currently unclear if Rust can interop with C++ with high fidelity. For example https://docs.rs/moveit/latest/moveit/ and https://github.com/google/crubit/blob/main/rs_bindings_from_... provide functionality to use non-trivially relocatable C++ types from Rust.

Their site is clearly showing the language is in beta. The V documentation also states that autofree is WIP, and to use the GC instead. This isn't a corporate created language, but looks to be a true volunteer open source effort from people around the world.

Their community, in comparison to others, even has their discussions open and open threads for criticism[1]. These

[1]https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610

V also has this https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#embed_fil...

Goroutines was the selling point for me until they decided to introduce telemetry in their toolchain; that was what forced me to stop using Golang as a whole.

About GC, I would say: if you implement C++'s RAII mechanism to replace garbage collection, then I believe this project will have a bright future.

My final question is the following: how `pcz` compares to V language, from a syntax's perspective [1]?

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v

V has the right to exist, have its supporters, and do things its own way. The creator and developers of V, from what I have seen, has always responded well to constructive criticism. Their language has discussions opened at their GitHub, unlike those for various other languages. They even have a thread for what people don't like and want improved about the language[1], again, something many other languages don't have.

A lot of what was going on initially, was coming from obvious competitors, to include being uncivil, inflammatory, and insulting. The initial "criticism" was not so much that, but false accusations of the language being a scam, vaporware, fraud, or didn't really exist. To include attacks and jealousy about its funding and having supporters. This was not any kind of "valid" criticism, that the creator or contributors of the language could reason about.

The "criticism" never died down, but rather after V was open-sourced and established itself on GitHub. The initial series of false accusations could not stand nor could the support it was getting be stopped. So, the rhetoric and targets shifted to whatever could be found to go after on the newly released alpha version of the language and its new website. In that new mix of what was being thrown at it, there were indeed some very valid criticisms, as can be found with any new language.

Constructive and valid criticism, is not the same as insults, trolling, misinformation, rivalry, or false accusations. There is clearly a difference. It's disingenuous to pretend something from one group is the same as the other, or that the intent behind what is being done is not different.

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610