On Monday, 25 July 2022 at 02:56:53 UTC, Tejas wrote:
> All the disinterest/lack of belief regarding Carbon's (potential)success is really making me think about Go, where people said something about it not having used any of the research in type theory since the 1970s, coupled with their insistence on not having generics, a stupid error handling system all combined to make it stand no chance in the future.
But it's still popular today
Maybe there's a non-trivial chance Carbon will end up the same? As we have already seen, it's not always about the technical merit.
Well, Go has some key technical merits: solid GC, stable non-breaking language, fast spinup time (compared to Java), easy build process, web-centric standard library.
So it is ok for smaller services that are to be maintained for years and years. I don't think Go is a good language, but I am also not able to point to another language that is more suited for hosting micro-web-services.
How does Carbon fit into this? By and large, slightly higher-level than C++, yet potentially better performing.
How can Carbon achieve this? By doing the opposite of D: throwing out C.