Summary

Google's introduction of Carbon as a successor to C++ has sparked debate over its necessity and potential longevity, with some skeptical about Google's commitment to new languages given past abandonments like Noop.

Abstract

Google's announcement of Carbon, a new programming language designed to improve upon C++, has garnered mixed reactions from the developer community. Proponents argue that Carbon's enhancements are a compelling reason for adoption, while critics question the need for a new language when existing ones like Rust offer similar improvements without Google's history of project abandonment. The article highlights previous instances where Google has discontinued languages, such as Noop, casting doubt on the long-term support for Carbon. The author suggests that rather than adopting new languages, developers should focus on writing better C++ code and choosing technologies that best fit their problem domain. The piece concludes by inviting readers to engage in a discussion about the merits of Carbon and the methodology of selecting programming languages.

Opinions

The author implies that Google's track record with Noop suggests potential volatility in their commitment to new programming languages, including Carbon.
There is a sentiment that the development of Carbon may be unnecessary, considering languages like Kotlin, TypeScript, and Swift have already addressed issues in their respective predecessors.
Some programmers are excited about Carbon's potential to streamline C++, indicating a demand for improvement in C++'s syntax and complexity.
A contrasting viewpoint is presented, suggesting that the push for new languages like Carbon reflects a perceived decline in programming skill, with some developers advocating for mastery of existing tools rather than chasing new ones.
Rust is cited as a superior alternative to Carbon, having addressed C++'s weaknesses without relying on manual memory management, and is seen as

Google Carbon Is A Tech Mistake

Stop, Please

Google has released Carbon as a natural successor to C++. Version 1 should be hitting Chromebooks in 2024–5 and certain programmers are getting wet and excited as a result.

Improvement Is Great For Languages!

The fact that it will improve C++ is a great reason to adopt Carbon.

Here is a quick summary of some of the arguments for and against learning and adopting Carbon.

Add yours in the comments section.

The incoherent, rambling and judgemental ones are the best

Improvement is the name of the game

So why is it that things in the software development game don’t seem to be improving?

Jetbrains improved on Java to create Kotlin
Microsoft built on JavaScript to create TypeScript (MORE)
Apple looked at Objective-C and came up with Swift

However, in each of those cases smart people looked at what needed to be improved, considered the best way of doing so and developed ways of making sure the language continues into the future.

There’s no point in starting something, and then just dropping it.

Surely Google wouldn’t do that! Or would they…

Noop is a no-op

Putting Google in charge of a new language has happened before. Our case study is Noop, which lasted a little under three years and conformed to that stereotype, that the search-engine wizards pick up and drop projects at will (with a website maintained simply to log their folly).

That’s not long for a language to gain adoption.

You can argue that dropping Noop was a great idea as Kotlin came into view.

Adopt Carbon, and expect to be left on the sidelines if something better comes along

Like your last partner

Overcome C++’s weakness. Syntax

Fair play. Some see C++ as complex and something which has tricky formatting. The language design of something as ancient as syntax can be improved.

That would be something to do then!

Some will, however, drop their glasses and say that programmers are getting stupider (sic) and dropping text-based tools is a step, too far on our journey into some sort of graphical language-based hell.

That’s what I’d say. Anyone after Turing probably doesn’t even KNOW how to code PROPERLY

Yet, before people say gatekeeping we say

Get gud

Although it would be fair to say that we shouldn’t (as professionals) be focusing solely on the trivial. It is for us to decide what is trivial, though.

Just use RUST

Haven’t we been here before?

Rust has been “influenced” by C++ in the same manner as Oasis cribbed the Beatles songbook. Rather than repeating the same songs with a lead singer who shouts, Rust actually improved on the original.

Carbon? Doesn’t deal with manual managing of dynamic allocated memory, so what’s the point?

Iterations should be iteratively better, and not just copy peers.

If not you simply become Ed Sheran

To stop this, simply write better C++ code.

Doesn’t Carbon enable cross platform development

Couldn’t you just write C++ code.

Yes, yes. You can

Why are people crying the following:

Mummy, C++ is too hard for us

Get a grip!

Conclusion

There should be a sensible conversation in the comments section after this fun poke at Google and Carbon.

This article picks holes with the standard methodology in which programming languages and technologies are picked.

I can’t believe this article conflates Google and Alphabet, what a junior waste of time argument bait.

No understandings arguments

Get an editor

So the readers won’t consider the best way to choose their technology by framing it within their problem domain?

You’re joking, right?

About The Author

Professional Software Developer “The Secret Developer” can be found on Twitter @TheSDeveloper and regularly publishes articles through Medium.com