ipr | crubit | |
---|---|---|
4 | 13 | |
216 | 556 | |
- | 4.5% | |
5.0 | 9.8 | |
10 months ago | 1 day ago | |
C++ | C++ | |
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
ipr
-
Module interfaces for pre-built libraries
I'm not sure about clang or gcc. For VS, u/GabrielDosReis might be able to speak to the .ifc IPR stability/volatility. My wager (deferring to him to correct me) is that the IPR is still changing over time but will stabilize more over time.
-
A new design pattern: the C++ "template mixin"
Have you had a look at its uses in the IPR interface and implementation? https://github.com/GabrielDosReis/ipr/blob/main/include/ipr/interface
-
Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
> C++ has virtually zero tooling
CMake, Meson, Waf, Conan, Visual Studio Code, Visual Studio, CLion, Intel VTune, GDB, LLDB, XCode, Artifactory, SonarQube, clang-tidy, clang-format, astyle, Incredibuild...
> Comparing CMake to cargo is like comparing fifth century fireworks to the Space Shuttle
You are wrong here. Cargo serves a set of fixed "this-is-how-to-do-it" thing. In C++ you can build anything. I do not mean it is better, but C++ software already exists and that is the solution that it works better for it. :)
> and the committee is not interested in ever working on that
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p08...
Interoperability effort for modules: https://github.com/GabrielDosReis/ipr
-
I hope this would ease C++ tooling
IPR Library
crubit
-
Making C++ Safe Without Borrow Checking, Reference Counting, or Tracing GC
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
- Will Carbon Replace C++?
-
Supporting the Use of Rust in the Chromium Project
For the people who are curious: crubit is an attempt to develop the way to seamlessly integrate C++ and Rust.
-
Crubit: C++/Rust Bidirectional Interop Tool
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
-
The Unicode Consortium announces ICU4X 1.0, its new high-performance internationalization library. It's written in Rust, with official C++ and JavaScript wrappers available.
autocxx is good, though crubit is aiming for direct bidirectional interop
-
Programming languages endorsed for server-side use at Meta
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
-
Carbon Language: An experimental successor to C++
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.
What are some alternatives?
ifc-spec - IFC format specification
carbon-lang - Carbon Language's main repository: documents, design, implementation, and related tools. (NOTE: Carbon Language is experimental; see README)
DIPs - D Improvement Proposals
verdigris - Qt without moc: set of macros to use Qt without needing moc
PythonNet - Python for .NET is a package that gives Python programmers nearly seamless integration with the .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR) and provides a powerful application scripting tool for .NET developers.
go-sumtype - A simple utility for running exhaustiveness checks on Go "sum types."
GrayC - GrayC: Greybox Fuzzing of Compilers and Analysers for C
go-server-core - An attempt to build a plugin based server
language - Design of the Dart language
autocxx - Tool for safe ergonomic Rust/C++ interop driven from existing C++ headers