Neither TypeScript nor Dart are relevant technologies to people interested in C++.
It's weird to refer to these arguably bad web technologies to market an unrelated initiative.
It's weird to refer to these arguably bad web technologies to market an unrelated initiative.
Dart aimed to replace JavaScript completely and isn’t very compatible with it, leading to issues like not being able to leverage the existing library ecosystem. While the Typescript approach enhances the base language instead of replacing it and is still compatible with existing libraries.
When looking at language adoption, the Typescript approach seems to have worked a lot better than the Dart approach. If it wasn’t for Flutter, Dart would probably be irrelevant by now and Typescript is now pretty much everywhere where JavaScript is.
Another successful-ish example of the Typescript plan is Kotlin, which was originally designed as an improved Java, fully compatible with the existing ecosystem.
So I can see where the author comes from when trying to do the same thing for C++.
I guess that's smart positioning. But a big problem Herb has is that the real alternative isn't any of those 2022 C++ Successor Languages. Ultimately your project will decide whether to stick with C++ or go to a language like Rust or maybe Swift. "Alternatives to C++" that might be finished some time in the next five years are irrelevant to that decision. It's like arguing that you're the best Chicago-style pizza joint in Naples. Who cares?
And when comparing against Rust or Swift, we're back to Herb's ten year head start problem also mentioned in this talk. Rust is what, 18 months away from its tenth anniversary of Rust 1.0? Swift is even closer.
In that sense, cpp2 might get to the point of being usable while having perfect interop with C++ (as in, you can use any C++ library trivially, and you can mix it with C++ in a codebase on a per file, maybe even within files, easily) before Rust or swift or Carbon.
It is also a reason why if you want modern C++ support on Apple devices, now you need to install clang yourself.
As Apple keeps focusing on Swift, with Objective-C for its companion.
It's not really a "web technology" at all. It's a language which transpiles to standard JavaScript. The only real web-geared parts of TypeScript are the included (optional) DOM typings.
JavaScript's only reason for existence is web browsers. If you're not doing web stuff do yourself a favour and use something else.
Yet, as with the parent comment, you haven't divulged your reasoning behind this statement. If you're going to make such a broad statement, at least place your rationale beside it.
> JavaScript's only reason for existence is web browsers.
JavaScript has seen broad adoption throughout the industry, for servers (Node.js, Deno, Bun), IoT (DeviceScript), browsers (duh) and mobile apps (NativeScript, React Native, etc.). It has its weak points, but downright dismissing it (again, without any rationale) is unfair and disingenuous IMO.
You don't build static typing on top of dynamic typing; it's silly. You do it the other way around.
If you're going to be outside of the browser, just use Python, which is not only somewhat similar but also the world's most popular programming language.