Hacker News Reader

Comment by reacharavindh | Hacker News Reader

I really wish a group of really smart dev get together and come up with a new language based just on the modern C++. Perhaps even call it MC++ (Modern C++). Make it's syntax as simple and easy to learn as Python and yet give us the performance close to the compiled C++. I'd take that knowing very well that I can't do all the powerful stuff I could with C, yet I have a safe and idiot-proof language to work with in my hands.

View on HN

To replace C++ it you would either have to make a near human quality automated converter (which is likely impossible right now) or make it compatiable with C++, in the way Groovy is compatiable with java.

A better example is the way C++ was compatible with C when it first came out. Apache Groovy has lots of little incompatibilities with Java, e.g. == has a different meaning in many cases.

Nim is closer to that ideal than Rust, I think; Rust requires provable object ownership that doesn't go bad, Nim uses an (optional, but strongly suggested) GC.

Nim's syntax is mostly pythonic, and it's metaproramming language is Nim (unlike C++'s abominable template metaprogramming language).

...and it compiles to C to leverage its speed and portability and it can use system libraries very easily.

Do you want it to be safe? Modern C++ is not safe.

If you want it to be safe, you will basically be reinventing Rust.

Swift?

Rust?

A very heavily biased rookie response. Not trying to be snarky.

Rust would be an obvious choice for what I described. It's been on my personal list for a while to learn Rust and make use of it. I think I will pretty soon.

I've been demotivated (to start) by reading over here on HN or elsewhere about how much of a learning curve it is to learn Rust. Perhaps, it was the bias that I already know what C++ was like in terms of syntax and idioms that made me ask for a choice with least friction.

You know c++ but you're worried about the complexity of Rust?

I'm mostly a front-end software engineer and I got along just fine with Rust.

> I've been demotivated (to start) by reading over here on HN or elsewhere about how much of a learning curve it is to learn Rust.

That learning curve is necessary for safety. If you want a safe C++-like language without Rust's learning curve, you either (1) have a brilliant solution nobody has come up with yet or (2) don't actually want a safe language after all.

I think it does not meet this requirement:

> Make it's syntax as simple and easy to learn as Python

Reply on news.ycombinator.com