this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)

Programming Languages

1186 readers
1 users here now

Hello!

This is the current Lemmy equivalent of https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/.

The content and rules are the same here as they are over there. Taken directly from the /r/ProgrammingLanguages overview:

This community is dedicated to the theory, design and implementation of programming languages.

Be nice to each other. Flame wars and rants are not welcomed. Please also put some effort into your post.

This isn't the right place to ask questions such as "What language should I use for X", "what language should I learn", and "what's your favorite language". Such questions should be posted in /c/learn_programming or /c/programming.

This is the right place for posts like the following:

See /r/ProgrammingLanguages for specific examples

Related online communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

From the page:

My aim is to produce a superset of C++ that has a rigorously safe subset. Start a new project, or take an existing one, and write safe code in C++. Code written in the safety context exhibits the same strong safety guarantees as safe code programmed in Rust. Indeed, lifetime safety is enforced statically with borrow checking, the signature safety technology first introduced in Rust

...

What properties characterize Safe C++?

  • A superset of C++ with a safe subset. Undefined behavior is prohibited from originating in the safe subset.
  • The safe and unsafe parts of the language are clearly delineated, and users must explicitly leave the safe context to use unsafe operations.
  • The safe subset must remain useful. If we get rid of a crucial unsafe technology, like unions or pointers, we should supply a safe alternative, like choice types or borrows. A perfectly safe language is not useful if it's so inexpressive you can't get your work done.
  • The new system can't break existing code. If you point a Safe C++ compiler at existing C++ code, that code must compile normally. Users opt into the new safety mechanisms. Safe C++ is an extension of C++. It's not a new language.
#feature on safety
#include "std2.h"

int main() safe {
  std2::vector<int> vec { 11, 15, 20 };

  for(int x : vec) {
    // Ill-formed. mutate of vec invalidates iterator in ranged-for.
    if(x % 2)
      vec^.push_back(x);

    unsafe printf("%d\n", x);
  }
}
$ circle iter3.cxx
safety: iter3.cxx:10:10
      vec^.push_back(x);
         ^
mutable borrow of vec between its shared borrow and its use
loan created at iter3.cxx:7:15
  for(int x : vec) {
              ^

A couple other languages aiming to create a "C++ successor" which is fully interoperable with C++ (analogous to TypeScript and JavaScript):

  • Carbon: an entirely new language which compiles straight to LLVM, but still strives to be highly interoperable with C++. Its goal is to add "modern" features: new syntax, parametric polymorphism, as well as removing C++'s backwards-compatibility quirks.
    • It has a section on memory safety which mentions a "safe Carbon subset". But this is a longer-term goal, whereas it's the main goal of Circle.
  • Cpp2: an alternate syntax for C++. It compiles to C++, but makes new features such as modules and concepts less verbose, while hiding or removing backwards-compatibility quirks (e.g. lists are std::array and string literals are std::string).
    • 100% memory safety is a non-goal: AFAIK it doesn't do static analysis and syntactic rewrites alone aren't powerful enough to enforce it.

Compared to the other languages, Circle remains closest to C++. The other languages try to fix other C++ "problems"; Circle's only goal is to fix memory unsafety, and otherwise keep syntax and semantics the same for maximum interoperability.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Gotta start somewhere though.

[–] FizzyOrange 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I feel like this is one of those XKCDs that automatically opts you out of sensible debate if you post it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

That's why I keep this image in my back pocket:

It may not directly create sensible debate, but it conters the thought terminating effect of the xkcd.

Edit: new link to the image

[–] b_van_b 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What's the image? I just get an error message.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

It's the "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" meme with society replaced with technology and the answer replaced with the xkcd.

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2705714-we-should-improve-society-somewhat

[–] icesentry 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Now I'm just curious if that was intentional.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

No, my instance was down.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

I'm going to steal this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Circle is a bit weird, since instead of being a new language, it's (or at least was when I last checked it out) technically a conforming C++-compiler, just with a lot of extensions. If we had interest, a lot of the stuff there could be standardised.

[–] suy 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

FWIW, cppfront would be the same, IMHO. It allows C++ syntax, and it just passes it through verbatim. Only transforms "syntax 2" into today's C++. And Herb Sutter very much says that what it does is based on the papers that he's presented for standardization, and that he'd like this approach (new syntax) land into today's C++ compilers and the standard.

cppfront is the only one that I thought had a chance till recently. The presentations from Sean Baxter seem to finally make the community see it on a positive light (I've seen posts on Reddit being removed on the premise of not being C++, which I think it's a bit unfair), so that's good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I do not really agree with cppfront being the same, given that it basically needs a full transpiler in front. A lot of the stuff there though is something that could be standardised though (and some of it absolutely shouldn't, I'm looking at you UFCS), but I don't think there's much support for changing any of the core syntax.

I kinda understand the r/cpp stance, because it's a bit difficult to draw the line there, but yeah, it feels a bit unfair. I think the first step of getting circle-like stuff into the language would be to standardise the #feature somehow.

[–] QuadriLiteral 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Note that the scope of "New Circle" is much bigger than "just" memory safety: choice types, pattern matching, ...