Hacker News Reader

Comment by coffeeaddict1 | Hacker News Reader

> I didn't post this item. I was rather surprised to stumble upon it this morning.

Hey, I posted this because I've been following your repo for quite a while. Together with Circle's borrow checker and Cpp2, I think this is a promising approach to make C++ safer although I wish the committee would be more involved in these sort of experiments (something that probably won't happen anytime soon).

View on HN

Hey thanks for your support! Committee interest might be nice, but I think what would be most helpful at this point is just additional resources in general, whether as a result of committee interest or otherwise. :)

Here's a feature comparison table that would go on the scpptool retail packaging. (HN supports mono-space font right?):

                               | scpptool |  circle  |   cpp2   |
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    |addresses lifetime safety |     Y    |     Y    |     N    |
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    |addresses iterator safety |     Y    |     Y    |     N    |
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    |supports auto-conversion  |     Y    |     N    | probably |
    |of legacy C++ code        |          |          |  doable  |
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    |reasonable support for    |     Y    |     N    |   not    |
    |cyclic references         |          |          |  safely  |
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    |works with any C++        |     Y    |     N    |     Y    |
    |compiler                  |          |          |          |
    -------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, that's certainly what such a feature comparison table would look like, a list of what you claim is great about your product, with check marks by it, and then everybody else's product doesn't have as many check marks.

But of course the reason you see these "comparison tables" on such products is that that's all they functionally are, a list of what you, the product's creator, think is great about your product, not actually a meaningful comparison.

> I think this is a promising approach to make C++ safer although I wish the committee would be more involved in these sort of experiments..

I'm as exited as the next guy about cpp2, circle and rust, but I'm not sure that's what the committee should focus on any time soon.

If you haven't already, take an hour or so to watch the cppnow24 keynote C++ Should Be C++ by David Sankel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com