jakt VS autocxx

SerenityOS is doing exactly that:

https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/tree/master/Ladybird

I also like their Jakt programming language:

https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt

Though I'm more enthusiastic about Redox (doing it in Rust):

https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/redox/

It's very opinionated and SerenityOS-focused, but the language Jakt ( https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt ) transpiles to C++, has memory safety and some very neat ideas for readability.

I love Rust, but its model and specifics would make it difficult to learn how to write code in other languages.

For low-level code, I think Carbon may fill that niche in the future. If it doesn't, C++ may be a good candidate once up-to-date books have been written and compilers actually support the modern spec. Classrooms/guides would need to move away from the still-lingering "C++ is C with classes" approach and use the standard library before that can be a reality, but this book[0] by Bjarne Stroustrup himself demonstrates the future C++ _could_ have if all the modern language features become usable.

In business, C++ will still be the domain of ancient clusterfucks compiled by MSVC++ 6 in many areas, similar to how most Java code is still built around Java 8 because that was the most recent stable version for many projects' lifecycle (and Oracle's decision to only ship JRE 8 to consumers doesn't help) and how .NET 4 is still taught in schools because the new and scary dotnet tool doesn't map 1-to-1 with the old way of working. I can't imagine microcontroller toolkits supporting a modern version of _any_ language in the first place.

However, if more people would learn modern C++ (or a replacement, like Carbon), I think this class of programming languages can have the same growth and hype Rust has enjoyed for the past years.

I'm keeping my eye on Carbon and Zig. Google's influence has managed to push Go to the forefront despite its many quirks, and Zig seems to be focused on doing "C, but right" rather than "C++, but right" which so far is looking pretty promising.

It's also fun to see Jakt[1] being developed in real time; I don't think it's a language that will be useful for production software any time soon, but on the other hand it's a language that actually produces binaries reliably (unlike pre-alpha Carbon or pre-release Zig, the latter exposing many problems after switching to a self-hosted compiler).

[0]: https://www.stroustrup.com/tour3.html

[1]: https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt

About php, I have no problem of rewriting whole game for performance reasons once it is done and popular in low level language like https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt but I think for now php is good and sufficient.

Jakt, pretty well designed (lots of ideas stolen from ML/Rust), but very immature

I think this thread might be interesting to the people here. The guy eventually started working on his own safe language, Jakt: https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt

Meanwhile, one of the best C++ sources which community mostly think of - Chromium - starting to experience with Rust. If i'm not mistaken using https://github.com/google/autocxx

There's bindgen, cxx and autocxx. Obviously not as convenient as C++ calling C++; the more you need to interoperate with C++ code the more it makes sense to just stay with C++.

If you want to reach the author for a correction, perhaps leave a comment on the Medium post or perhaps mention it on the autocxx PR I found this article from.

Rust and C++ are not directly interoperable, but you can try to use some fancy libraries if your C++ codebase is simple. Google is taking on this gargantuan task with autocxx. I believe it is related to their exploration efforts to bring Rust to Chrome.

I used autocxx in a recent project and was amazed at how easy it was to call into C++ -- Rust Analyzer was even able to provide completion hints.

Sure, they can improve C++ interop - and they have been - but that doesn't help them maintain the dozens of millions of lines of C++ they (Google, and others) currently have. Carbon is a pragmatic solution to the state of affairs in C++ that doesn't require them to rewrite all of their existing code to improve its maintainability.

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

That's not at all in Rust's bill, it needs an interaction layer to talk to C++. Efforts like cxx (and google's own autocxx) try to make this layer more automated and less painful, but the layer is still there, it still has a cost, and it doesn't erase the impedance mismatches between the languages.

Notably Google is also investing in autocxx to make C++/Rust bidirectional interoperation easier

Again, not really...? A lot of the proposed ABI changes (for C++ - I don't know what they're planning for Carbon) are trivial to automatically fix if you have source access. If you don't have source access, you "only" need to maintain the ABI at the boundaries between foreign code and your code, which is quite possible (especially after the success of autocxx and related projects in the Rust <-> C++ world)