Carbon’s most exciting feature is its calling convention(foonathan.net)
foonathan.net
Carbon’s most exciting feature is its calling convention
https://www.foonathan.net/2022/07/carbon-calling-convention/
219 comments
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what's special about Carbon here. In C++ the compiler can also optimize pass-by-const-reference to pass-by-value, and they do. It just can't do it across an ABI boundary, but that should only be an issue with dynamic libraries, and Carbon has to follow the standard ABI there as well. Just make sure the compiler knows it doesn't have to follow the standard ABI for every symbol in your program, e.g. by enabling LTO and setting -fvisibility=hidden. See what happens `add` is made static: https://godbolt.org/z/KsqxP5Pxh (I also had to change foo() to avoid the compiler hardcoding the result of the single call in `add`).
That optimization is quite fragile.
For example, try putting `puts("hello");` at the beginning of `add`. Now neither GCC nor Clang performs the optimization. Why? Because `puts` could theoretically modify the value behind the reference, so the value loaded is not necessarily the same as the value at the beginning of the function, which makes things more complicated, so both compilers give up.
As another example, GCC and Clang both perform the optimization within a translation unit, but if the function definition and the call are in different translation units, GCC doesn't perform the optimization even with LTO, and Clang doesn't perform it with ThinLTO (but does perform it with full LTO). Meanwhile, many projects don't compile with any form of LTO, which is a reasonable decision to improve compilation speed and predictability.
Neither compiler is smart enough to perform the optimization for virtual calls in almost any situation.
For example, try putting `puts("hello");` at the beginning of `add`. Now neither GCC nor Clang performs the optimization. Why? Because `puts` could theoretically modify the value behind the reference, so the value loaded is not necessarily the same as the value at the beginning of the function, which makes things more complicated, so both compilers give up.
As another example, GCC and Clang both perform the optimization within a translation unit, but if the function definition and the call are in different translation units, GCC doesn't perform the optimization even with LTO, and Clang doesn't perform it with ThinLTO (but does perform it with full LTO). Meanwhile, many projects don't compile with any form of LTO, which is a reasonable decision to improve compilation speed and predictability.
Neither compiler is smart enough to perform the optimization for virtual calls in almost any situation.
Carbon doesn't do the next logical optimization, and only converts a const& parameter to a value. If a function has parameter "const struct_with_two_floats&", and reads it, calls puts(), then reads it again, Carbon will not be willing to optimize out the "redundant" read.
It seems odd to break with C++ semantics for small parameters only; I'd expect it to either break for all parameters or no parameters.
EDIT: looks like Carbon is not doing this optimization for small values either. Its docs on parameters say, "This binding will be implemented using a pointer, unless it is legal to copy and copying is cheaper". And the OP link says, "the compiler is allowed to convert that to a T [copy] under the as-if rule." That seems like no extra optimization is enabled other than changing the function calling convention. And the "as-if" rule would require looking at the function body to check if the value could be changed (by things like puts()). I hope my understanding is wrong because this does not make sense. The word "legal" is ambiguous, so hopefully they mean something else!
It seems odd to break with C++ semantics for small parameters only; I'd expect it to either break for all parameters or no parameters.
EDIT: looks like Carbon is not doing this optimization for small values either. Its docs on parameters say, "This binding will be implemented using a pointer, unless it is legal to copy and copying is cheaper". And the OP link says, "the compiler is allowed to convert that to a T [copy] under the as-if rule." That seems like no extra optimization is enabled other than changing the function calling convention. And the "as-if" rule would require looking at the function body to check if the value could be changed (by things like puts()). I hope my understanding is wrong because this does not make sense. The word "legal" is ambiguous, so hopefully they mean something else!
I have been burned many times in the past by "the compiler is allowed to optimise something away".
You write your code assuming such an optimisation will happen, and for some reason, the compiler decides not to apply the optimisation. Perhaps the wind was blowing in the wrong direction, or it was in a bad mood, or you forgot to specify -fvisiblitly=hidden.
The exciting part here is that it happens by default, and the compiler is required to do it. I don't have to think about it, and the ABI automatically does the thing best for performance.
You write your code assuming such an optimisation will happen, and for some reason, the compiler decides not to apply the optimisation. Perhaps the wind was blowing in the wrong direction, or it was in a bad mood, or you forgot to specify -fvisiblitly=hidden.
The exciting part here is that it happens by default, and the compiler is required to do it. I don't have to think about it, and the ABI automatically does the thing best for performance.
I don't think that fvisibility=hidden on its own is sufficient, it does not allow the compiler to break the call abi as the function could still be called from another .o (which will only know the mangled name of the original function). You need fvisibility=internal (or maybe fno-semantic-interposition but I'm not sure if it's enough).
I think you just need LTO if you want full optimization without regards for the ABI constraints
>Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what's special about Carbon here.
It's nothing really out of the ordinary ... also that particular optimization is meager in practice (on the order of 1%?). I know everything improvement adds up, but the author talks about it as if it was a game changer. I like the enthusiasm, though :D.
It's nothing really out of the ordinary ... also that particular optimization is meager in practice (on the order of 1%?). I know everything improvement adds up, but the author talks about it as if it was a game changer. I like the enthusiasm, though :D.
The "ABI now or never" paper suggests somewhere on the order of 5-10%, and that's without considering the escape pessimization. Especially with the rapid expansion of smart pointer usage (and for good reason!).
Given the major selling point of C/C++ is performance, that's not an insignificant amount.
Given the major selling point of C/C++ is performance, that's not an insignificant amount.
I think the alias analysis “pro” is overblown, it’s UB to take the address of a parameter via any mechanism other than explicitly taking the address - which a compiler obviously sees, and because it’s UB the compiler optimizes is free to assume no one is taking the address. Then for any parameters that are passed by reference the compiler has to assume there are other references so there’s no gain.
Honestly the only thing that really stood out as nice is the default pass by word-sized value, in the context of templates - it’s a thing that is achievable in C++, but requires a bunch of obnoxious additional templates that aren’t even part of the standard library so everyone ends up reimplementing the same cruft. Happily I believe there’s a proposal to add this exact functionality.
I also loathe their desire to listen to the BNF maximalists insistence on not having any “ambiguity” from <>s. I’m sorry it’s clearly parseable, and <>s are the standard token for decades. Switching to []s doesn’t make it less conceptually ambiguous, if anything it makes it more ambiguous to a human reader. The only people who don’t want <>s are PLT academics obsessed with forcing their dragon book idea of what a grammar should be. You can’t argue you’re doing it because the ambiguity in a grammar or lexer is bad, because then you would also drop infix operators.
Then in carbon the more reasonable adoption of pascal’s : notation for typing a variable or parameter removes the most common case of the supposedly terrible ambiguity anyway.
Honestly the only thing that really stood out as nice is the default pass by word-sized value, in the context of templates - it’s a thing that is achievable in C++, but requires a bunch of obnoxious additional templates that aren’t even part of the standard library so everyone ends up reimplementing the same cruft. Happily I believe there’s a proposal to add this exact functionality.
I also loathe their desire to listen to the BNF maximalists insistence on not having any “ambiguity” from <>s. I’m sorry it’s clearly parseable, and <>s are the standard token for decades. Switching to []s doesn’t make it less conceptually ambiguous, if anything it makes it more ambiguous to a human reader. The only people who don’t want <>s are PLT academics obsessed with forcing their dragon book idea of what a grammar should be. You can’t argue you’re doing it because the ambiguity in a grammar or lexer is bad, because then you would also drop infix operators.
Then in carbon the more reasonable adoption of pascal’s : notation for typing a variable or parameter removes the most common case of the supposedly terrible ambiguity anyway.
> I also loathe their desire to listen to the BNF maximalists insistence on not having any “ambiguity” from
Odd that you put ambiguity in quotes. I guess it's not real ambiguity then.
Ivory tower academics, as you see them, actually care about stuff because it affects you. I've heard too many times the knee-jerk response of "it's just theory" as if that actually meant anything. Try implementing it yourself and you'd start to understand that little bits of crap typically don't add, they multiply (Edit: and I'm hurting from exactly this right now), so don't diss theory until you've (ironically) had some practice with it.
Odd that you put ambiguity in quotes. I guess it's not real ambiguity then.
Ivory tower academics, as you see them, actually care about stuff because it affects you. I've heard too many times the knee-jerk response of "it's just theory" as if that actually meant anything. Try implementing it yourself and you'd start to understand that little bits of crap typically don't add, they multiply (Edit: and I'm hurting from exactly this right now), so don't diss theory until you've (ironically) had some practice with it.
> Odd that you put ambiguity in quotes. I guess it's not real ambiguity then.
Because a parser is never really ambiguous is it? Nobody writes a parser that has a random decision on which rule to take.
Because a parser is never really ambiguous is it? Nobody writes a parser that has a random decision on which rule to take.
In parser theory there is such a thing as an ambiguous grammar. Parser generators detect such a grammar and never produce an actual parser for it. So in a sense most parser that you actually use don't have ambiguous grammars by definition. That said, you could have a manually written parser that thinks it implements an "ambiguous grammar", but in reality chose an deterministic (even if possibly arbitrary l) resolution of the ambiguity.
It's still ok talk about the grammar as being ambiguous no matter what a purported implementation of such grammar is deterministic (because it ultimately does not implement the actual grammar)
It's still ok talk about the grammar as being ambiguous no matter what a purported implementation of such grammar is deterministic (because it ultimately does not implement the actual grammar)
I guess I don't understand why we use languages for writing grammars that let you express ambiguity in the first place.
I think parser generators were a mistake.
I think parser generators were a mistake.
for someone who is the founder of TruffleRuby (I've checked, and you are <https://docs.oracle.com/en/graalvm/enterprise/21/docs/refere...>), you sure have made some very odd comments and I don't know what to make of them.
> you sure have made some very odd comments and I don't know what to make of them
Well they’re from practical experience aren’t they.
Well they’re from practical experience aren’t they.
Well, first you don't seem to understand what 'ambiguity' means in the context of parsing "Nobody writes a parser that has a random decision..." which is weird. It's a very establish meaning here.
Then you say "I guess I don't understand why we use languages for writing grammars that let you express ambiguity in the first place" without any suggestions, or even if this is possible, or if it is, whether the resulting language might be too constrained to be useful (interesting question though. Edit: even context-free grammars have ambiguity, eg. the regexp "aa" is legal but ambiguous for sentence "aaa").
Then "I think parser generators were a mistake" which is surreal. If you've ever had the tedious misfortune to write one manually, you know how much faster it is to have the computer do that work.
So I am thrown a bit here.
Then you say "I guess I don't understand why we use languages for writing grammars that let you express ambiguity in the first place" without any suggestions, or even if this is possible, or if it is, whether the resulting language might be too constrained to be useful (interesting question though. Edit: even context-free grammars have ambiguity, eg. the regexp "aa" is legal but ambiguous for sentence "aaa").
Then "I think parser generators were a mistake" which is surreal. If you've ever had the tedious misfortune to write one manually, you know how much faster it is to have the computer do that work.
So I am thrown a bit here.
If you choose to specify your language using a class of grammar which permits ambiguity, then you have to resolve that ambiguity.
If instead you choose to specify your language using a class of grammar which does not permit ambiguity, then you don't have to resolve it because it never existed.
That's the point.
The suggestion is to either specify your language using a formal grammar which does not permit ambiguity, or to specify your language imperatively, using a reference parser.
I've written many parsers, both using parser generators and manually. I'd choose to write one manually. In fact, I'm currently looking at a project at work right now to take a generated parser and to re-write it manually because it's easier to work with.
That's a pretty mainstream opinion amongst professionals in the industry - not sure why you think it's surreal or why it's throwing you.
If instead you choose to specify your language using a class of grammar which does not permit ambiguity, then you don't have to resolve it because it never existed.
That's the point.
The suggestion is to either specify your language using a formal grammar which does not permit ambiguity, or to specify your language imperatively, using a reference parser.
I've written many parsers, both using parser generators and manually. I'd choose to write one manually. In fact, I'm currently looking at a project at work right now to take a generated parser and to re-write it manually because it's easier to work with.
That's a pretty mainstream opinion amongst professionals in the industry - not sure why you think it's surreal or why it's throwing you.
> If you choose to specify your language using a class of grammar which permits ambiguity, then you have to resolve that ambiguity.
I added an edit after which you may not have seen:
> I'd choose to write one manually
Matter of taste I guess.
I added an edit after which you may not have seen:
even context-free grammars have ambiguity, eg. the regexp "aa" is legal but ambiguous for sentence "aaa"
> I'd choose to write one manually
Matter of taste I guess.
> So what grammar can you suggest that's even weaker than context-free (to make expressions of ambiguity impossible) and still useful?
It doesn’t need to be weak. For example use a Parsing Expression Grammar.
It doesn’t need to be weak. For example use a Parsing Expression Grammar.
I agree it's a pain. Could you share some alternatives?
Imperative parsing - PEGs or just plain old recursive descent.
Ok that's about the "parser generator" part. But what about the "formal grammar" part?
Do you really want your language to be defined by a particular imperative parser implementation?
I'm asking because I do have a practical problem: my team has a hand crafted parser for a language. It should follow a spec written in EBNF. That spec could be ambiguous it's not because an automated tool checks that that EBNF grammar is not ambiguous.
I find the ability to document the grammar using something that everybody understands (BNF and variants) to be very useful. Yet, your comment seems to imply that since it allows ambiguous grammars we should be using it.
EDIT: our grammar is implemented by three different parsers, written in two programming languages.
Do you really want your language to be defined by a particular imperative parser implementation?
I'm asking because I do have a practical problem: my team has a hand crafted parser for a language. It should follow a spec written in EBNF. That spec could be ambiguous it's not because an automated tool checks that that EBNF grammar is not ambiguous.
I find the ability to document the grammar using something that everybody understands (BNF and variants) to be very useful. Yet, your comment seems to imply that since it allows ambiguous grammars we should be using it.
EDIT: our grammar is implemented by three different parsers, written in two programming languages.
> Do you really want your language to be defined by a particular imperative parser implementation?
Yes please. The code defines completely and unambiguously how the language is parsed.
Yes please. The code defines completely and unambiguously how the language is parsed.
If the code only handled parsing the grammar, I'd be with you, but more than half of a parser deals with what to do with what you just parsed which may be quite different between the various implementations of the grammar
I put ambiguity in quotes, because the only people who claim it makes things ambiguous are theoreticians - who you appear to have decided I think of as being "ivory tower" which we'll address in a bit - who favor a theoretical definition of what a grammar should be, and disregard (1) how people understand language, programming or otherwise, (2) insist on a mathematical definition of grammars, and grammar classes, that doesn't reflect reality. Insisting on that mathematical definition of what a grammar is, is the thing that creates the ambiguity that is so despised here, and (3) want to prioritize the ease of parsing for a dumb parser over the reality in which a parser has actual contextual information.
It's also well understood that for (2) this theoretical ambiguity is not actually a real problem for humans - the things for which reading is actually important - because otherwise they would not allow infix operators, which are ambiguous according to their definition, but much like languages that they have chosen to define as ambiguous, infix is not.
In that theoretical model of grammars we define the power of different classes of parsers to go something like LL < LALR < LR < GLR. This is how the mathematical theory of grammars goes, and everything beyond LL is basically required to be based on some PDA. The ambiguities in the PDA's state transitions are what "prove" a grammar to be ambiguous. Further LL parsers are considered the least powerful, and incapable of parsing the majority of grammars, especially those that belong to "real" languages.
The problem is that this model of grammars is arbitrarily restricted, and many (I would guess most real world) parsers for "real" languages are not any of these classes, which is certainly odd given the completeness indicated by theory. That's because this restricted definition of what a parser is says that most real world programming languages require an LALR parser, and in reality the big ones likely need LR or GLR.
In the real world, what is used could probably be classed as LL(infinity), which is impossible according to the theoretical parser classes in use. The reason that we use these impossible LL(infinity) parsers, is because they are human writable, and human understandable, and also vastly faster than the state machines LALR parsers (think bison and yacc IIRC), even more so for LR, and slower again for GLR (even if you can get away with a tomita parser, if you could find a generator for one). Additionally all the non LL parsers can only be reasonably implemented via state machine, and beyond trivial examples, a human is not going to be able to write the state transition tables, let alone modify it in future.
That means using a tool to generate the parser for you, and this really is the heart of the theoretical definition being used, to be a "real" parser, you need to be able to make a tool that will read a BNF grammar, and have it produce a program that will be able to take some text, and then, accumulating no state beyond a stack and its current state, produce an AST.
I have never been shown any justification for why this makes a grammar more understandable, it is simply stated as fact that being easier for a machine to parse means being easier for a human. The contra to that is that most people seem find infix much easier to understand than the non ambiguous pre- and post-fix notations. You could argue that's familiarity, but I would say "so what?" that people can find the "ambiguous" grammar easier to understand than the non ambiguous one indicates that the claim of "easier for machine == easier for people" to not stand up.
Anyway that giant wall of text is my position, and that is why I don't accept "<> for generics is ambiguous" as the sole justification for a change from the root language this is meant to be a replacement for. If they were creating their own language then sure, they could go ham and make the least ambiguous language that they liked (but lisp I think has technically already done that), but that is not what Carbon is doing.
Finally (and so the Great Wall of text continues) on your "ivory tower academic" accusation, I disagree. Academic CS is hugely valuable, and having been in CS academia for many years I feel I am allowed to express my disagreement with some of it.
If credential waving is needed, for academics: my masters is in programming language theory, and I was the TA for among other things my university's courses on programming language theory, parsing, etc. In industry I've worked on clang for many years, and for parsing specifically I wrote the javascript parser in javascriptcore.
I understand parsing, and I understand the PLT subfield of CS.
My frustration with academic PLT is more that by confining the definitions of what is a valid grammar, or what is a real parser, we don't see any real research into into those aspects of PLT and in my experience it seems like an area where we just treat the dragon book as being the definition of everything that matters. Then we turn around say anything that doesn't fit neatly in that definition must be bad, and can be ignored.
It's also well understood that for (2) this theoretical ambiguity is not actually a real problem for humans - the things for which reading is actually important - because otherwise they would not allow infix operators, which are ambiguous according to their definition, but much like languages that they have chosen to define as ambiguous, infix is not.
In that theoretical model of grammars we define the power of different classes of parsers to go something like LL < LALR < LR < GLR. This is how the mathematical theory of grammars goes, and everything beyond LL is basically required to be based on some PDA. The ambiguities in the PDA's state transitions are what "prove" a grammar to be ambiguous. Further LL parsers are considered the least powerful, and incapable of parsing the majority of grammars, especially those that belong to "real" languages.
The problem is that this model of grammars is arbitrarily restricted, and many (I would guess most real world) parsers for "real" languages are not any of these classes, which is certainly odd given the completeness indicated by theory. That's because this restricted definition of what a parser is says that most real world programming languages require an LALR parser, and in reality the big ones likely need LR or GLR.
In the real world, what is used could probably be classed as LL(infinity), which is impossible according to the theoretical parser classes in use. The reason that we use these impossible LL(infinity) parsers, is because they are human writable, and human understandable, and also vastly faster than the state machines LALR parsers (think bison and yacc IIRC), even more so for LR, and slower again for GLR (even if you can get away with a tomita parser, if you could find a generator for one). Additionally all the non LL parsers can only be reasonably implemented via state machine, and beyond trivial examples, a human is not going to be able to write the state transition tables, let alone modify it in future.
That means using a tool to generate the parser for you, and this really is the heart of the theoretical definition being used, to be a "real" parser, you need to be able to make a tool that will read a BNF grammar, and have it produce a program that will be able to take some text, and then, accumulating no state beyond a stack and its current state, produce an AST.
I have never been shown any justification for why this makes a grammar more understandable, it is simply stated as fact that being easier for a machine to parse means being easier for a human. The contra to that is that most people seem find infix much easier to understand than the non ambiguous pre- and post-fix notations. You could argue that's familiarity, but I would say "so what?" that people can find the "ambiguous" grammar easier to understand than the non ambiguous one indicates that the claim of "easier for machine == easier for people" to not stand up.
Anyway that giant wall of text is my position, and that is why I don't accept "<> for generics is ambiguous" as the sole justification for a change from the root language this is meant to be a replacement for. If they were creating their own language then sure, they could go ham and make the least ambiguous language that they liked (but lisp I think has technically already done that), but that is not what Carbon is doing.
Finally (and so the Great Wall of text continues) on your "ivory tower academic" accusation, I disagree. Academic CS is hugely valuable, and having been in CS academia for many years I feel I am allowed to express my disagreement with some of it.
If credential waving is needed, for academics: my masters is in programming language theory, and I was the TA for among other things my university's courses on programming language theory, parsing, etc. In industry I've worked on clang for many years, and for parsing specifically I wrote the javascript parser in javascriptcore.
I understand parsing, and I understand the PLT subfield of CS.
My frustration with academic PLT is more that by confining the definitions of what is a valid grammar, or what is a real parser, we don't see any real research into into those aspects of PLT and in my experience it seems like an area where we just treat the dragon book as being the definition of everything that matters. Then we turn around say anything that doesn't fit neatly in that definition must be bad, and can be ignored.
>because otherwise they would not allow infix operators, which are ambiguous according to their definition
This is not true, infix operators can be easily encoded in BNF as a series of rules, each rule recognizing expressions unique to it as well as all the expressions of higher precedence. The following for example is a grammar that parses the four arithmetic operations with the usual precedence.
Expr ::= Addition
Addition ::= Term ((PLUS | MINUS) Term)*
Term ::= Prim ((MUL | DIV) Prim)*
Prim ::= NUM | OPEN_PAREN Expr CLOSE_PAREN
>The problem is that this model of grammars is arbitrarily restricted
It is restricted, but not arbitarily so. There is a very natural constraint that explains why Parsing Theory doesn't like ad-hoc parsers in the way you hate so much : the parser shouldn't depend on the "content" of the stream. The easiest way to see what I mean by this is to demonstrate how one violation of it works : C++'s ambiguous "X Y();" is either a function prototype or a variable declaration, depending on whether Y is a valid type name. This is extremely ugly to me, a parser shouldn't accumulate type information while it's parsing, even if it's as trivial as a set of type names. This is an entirely different concern that should be left to an entirely different module of the compiler. C++'s syntax is full to the brim of such ugly corners, the standard doesn't even bother to specify a binding BNF on the implementations!
Compiler Theory settled on an interface design where the parser must be able to output a concrete syntax tree from a stream without relying on global ad-hoc state like a table of special names or whatever. You framing it as "accumulating no state beyond a stack and its current state" is being unfair, it would be like framing the point of local variables as just a limiting thing that we invented arbitarily : Yes, that's the entire point, No, it's not arbitary, it's intentionally limiting, because the resulting design is easier to understand and simply more elegant.
>lisp I think has technically already done that
There is a middle ground between lisp's austere and misguided "F*k You, Why Should Parsing Be Hard Just To Please Your Eyes?" syntactical philosophy, and between C++'s and Perl's "Lol, Grammars Are For Weaklings". Complex syntax is good, it automates the tedious tree-layout that is the text of lisp programs, you don't need to repetitively state the precedence and hierarchy of code elements, the parser infers some of them for you. However, as in all "The Machine Infers Things" situations, we have to be careful with the rules of inference. We don't want the machine to infer counter-intuitive things, or fail to infer entirely. CFGs formalism is an elegant tradeoff.
>we don't see any real research into into those aspects of PLT
It might be the other way around, that allowing arbitary ad-hoc state in the parser results in too ugly a formalism or no interesting formalism at all, therefore people settled on disallowing it. It's like how theoretical mechanics famously hates friction, it isn't arbitary or born of prejudice, it's just that friction is too ugly and hard to yield an elegant and concise theory, therefore people just pretend that it doesn't exist.
On the surface, it doesn't seem hard to try and formalize some of the real-world parser hacks into the grammar formalism. For example, C++'s "this should be parsed as X unless the name is in a certain set then it should be parsed as Y" doesn't appear too wild a constraint type to encode in a formal grammar, my suspicion is that if you try to do it you will either discover that (a) it doesn't actually change any of the implication of traditional theory, and therefore it is just a "sugar" over traditional constraints : cool, but it technically doesn't tell us anything new (b) it significantly changes the implications and guarantees of theory, to the point that it's not an elegant or beautiful theory anymore. You can introduce control flow into prolog, but why bother ? it wouldn't be prolog anymore.
I don't want to imply that Academia is all-seeing or all-wise, but it is a very powerful novelty-rewarding machine, if there is Anything theoretically interesting to be gained from formalizing parsing hacks, I find it very hard to believe it hasn't been studied in 65+ years of grinding on parser theory and formal grammars.
>I would guess most real world parsers for "real" languages are not any of these classes
I find this too strong a claim. I would bet money it's false for anything but C, C++, Perl, Ruby, and let's say PHP just to be safe. Mention any language that isn't on this blacklist, and I bet I can find BNF-like description of the grammar that tells you perfectly well how to obtain a CST from text, which means they are CFG.
This is not true, infix operators can be easily encoded in BNF as a series of rules, each rule recognizing expressions unique to it as well as all the expressions of higher precedence. The following for example is a grammar that parses the four arithmetic operations with the usual precedence.
Expr ::= Addition
Addition ::= Term ((PLUS | MINUS) Term)*
Term ::= Prim ((MUL | DIV) Prim)*
Prim ::= NUM | OPEN_PAREN Expr CLOSE_PAREN
>The problem is that this model of grammars is arbitrarily restricted
It is restricted, but not arbitarily so. There is a very natural constraint that explains why Parsing Theory doesn't like ad-hoc parsers in the way you hate so much : the parser shouldn't depend on the "content" of the stream. The easiest way to see what I mean by this is to demonstrate how one violation of it works : C++'s ambiguous "X Y();" is either a function prototype or a variable declaration, depending on whether Y is a valid type name. This is extremely ugly to me, a parser shouldn't accumulate type information while it's parsing, even if it's as trivial as a set of type names. This is an entirely different concern that should be left to an entirely different module of the compiler. C++'s syntax is full to the brim of such ugly corners, the standard doesn't even bother to specify a binding BNF on the implementations!
Compiler Theory settled on an interface design where the parser must be able to output a concrete syntax tree from a stream without relying on global ad-hoc state like a table of special names or whatever. You framing it as "accumulating no state beyond a stack and its current state" is being unfair, it would be like framing the point of local variables as just a limiting thing that we invented arbitarily : Yes, that's the entire point, No, it's not arbitary, it's intentionally limiting, because the resulting design is easier to understand and simply more elegant.
>lisp I think has technically already done that
There is a middle ground between lisp's austere and misguided "F*k You, Why Should Parsing Be Hard Just To Please Your Eyes?" syntactical philosophy, and between C++'s and Perl's "Lol, Grammars Are For Weaklings". Complex syntax is good, it automates the tedious tree-layout that is the text of lisp programs, you don't need to repetitively state the precedence and hierarchy of code elements, the parser infers some of them for you. However, as in all "The Machine Infers Things" situations, we have to be careful with the rules of inference. We don't want the machine to infer counter-intuitive things, or fail to infer entirely. CFGs formalism is an elegant tradeoff.
>we don't see any real research into into those aspects of PLT
It might be the other way around, that allowing arbitary ad-hoc state in the parser results in too ugly a formalism or no interesting formalism at all, therefore people settled on disallowing it. It's like how theoretical mechanics famously hates friction, it isn't arbitary or born of prejudice, it's just that friction is too ugly and hard to yield an elegant and concise theory, therefore people just pretend that it doesn't exist.
On the surface, it doesn't seem hard to try and formalize some of the real-world parser hacks into the grammar formalism. For example, C++'s "this should be parsed as X unless the name is in a certain set then it should be parsed as Y" doesn't appear too wild a constraint type to encode in a formal grammar, my suspicion is that if you try to do it you will either discover that (a) it doesn't actually change any of the implication of traditional theory, and therefore it is just a "sugar" over traditional constraints : cool, but it technically doesn't tell us anything new (b) it significantly changes the implications and guarantees of theory, to the point that it's not an elegant or beautiful theory anymore. You can introduce control flow into prolog, but why bother ? it wouldn't be prolog anymore.
I don't want to imply that Academia is all-seeing or all-wise, but it is a very powerful novelty-rewarding machine, if there is Anything theoretically interesting to be gained from formalizing parsing hacks, I find it very hard to believe it hasn't been studied in 65+ years of grinding on parser theory and formal grammars.
>I would guess most real world parsers for "real" languages are not any of these classes
I find this too strong a claim. I would bet money it's false for anything but C, C++, Perl, Ruby, and let's say PHP just to be safe. Mention any language that isn't on this blacklist, and I bet I can find BNF-like description of the grammar that tells you perfectly well how to obtain a CST from text, which means they are CFG.
> which a compiler obviously sees
Not if it's in a different compilation unit, it doesn't. Or if it's just not inlining the function for some reason, then it probably also doesn't. Which is why Carbon's restriction here is so useful and practical.
Not if it's in a different compilation unit, it doesn't. Or if it's just not inlining the function for some reason, then it probably also doesn't. Which is why Carbon's restriction here is so useful and practical.
Ok, I'm willing to accept be wrong here. My interpretation of what I read is that Carbon is disallowing taking the address of a parameter. Very specifically:
I'm assuming its a different TU or something else that prevents inter procedural optimization. Could you give some examples where this allows performance wins?
void f(int i) { &i; /* disallowed */ }
void g(int &i) { &i; /* disallowed once more */ }
I'm assuming its a different TU or something else that prevents inter procedural optimization. Could you give some examples where this allows performance wins?
That is what Carbon prevents, yes. And, inside a particular function that does it, it's obviously easy to detect. But in the calling function, it's not easy to detect.
If in boo.cpp you call your g() function which is in foo.cpp, how does the compiler know if it's taking the address or not? It's in a different compilation unit. All the compiler knows at that point is there's a function 'g' that takes an int by reference. It has no idea what 'g' does with it, it doesn't even know where 'g' is - that won't be known until link time. So the compiler is forced to be conservative and allow for 'g' to do anything that C++ allows - which includes stashing the reference somewhere or const_cast'ing away a const& into a mutable reference.
This is where Carbon's win comes in. Since that behavior just isn't allowed, the compiler doesn't have to be conservative. It doesn't need to somehow see into different compilation units to perform helpful optimizations (critically for const unique_ptr& or const shared_ptr&)
If in boo.cpp you call your g() function which is in foo.cpp, how does the compiler know if it's taking the address or not? It's in a different compilation unit. All the compiler knows at that point is there's a function 'g' that takes an int by reference. It has no idea what 'g' does with it, it doesn't even know where 'g' is - that won't be known until link time. So the compiler is forced to be conservative and allow for 'g' to do anything that C++ allows - which includes stashing the reference somewhere or const_cast'ing away a const& into a mutable reference.
This is where Carbon's win comes in. Since that behavior just isn't allowed, the compiler doesn't have to be conservative. It doesn't need to somehow see into different compilation units to perform helpful optimizations (critically for const unique_ptr& or const shared_ptr&)
> it’s UB to take the address of a parameter via any mechanism other than explicitly taking the address - which a compiler obviously sees, and because it’s UB the compiler optimizes is free to assume no one is taking the address.
I don't get that: can you express in C++ a code that "take the address of a parameter via any mechanism other than explicitly taking the address"?
I don't get that: can you express in C++ a code that "take the address of a parameter via any mechanism other than explicitly taking the address"?
Consider this C code (also "works" if compiled as C++):
The more general name for this concept is "pointer provenance". Basically, you can't pull pointer values out of thin air; you have to derive them from operations rooted at taking the address of something within the same allocation.
int main(void) {
int x = 0;
int arr[1];
int *p = arr + 1;
*p = 42;
return x;
}
The more general name for this concept is "pointer provenance". Basically, you can't pull pointer values out of thin air; you have to derive them from operations rooted at taking the address of something within the same allocation.
That's a buffer overflow. The optimizer doesn't need to reason about changing the behavior of such things.
That’s the point - it’s UB to go off the end of an array, or more generally to dereference a pointer outside of the bounds of the target object (yes, buffer+buffer_length is a valid pointer for the purpose of comparisons, but dereferencing it would be UB).
However in practice you can do this, and walk the stack to find the parameters or what have you, and then you’ve got a pointer to a parameter without the compiler being aware of it. But this is all explicitly UB, so it’s ok for the compiler to be unaware of it, and it’s free to do whatever codegen it wants given the assumption that UB can never happen.
However in practice you can do this, and walk the stack to find the parameters or what have you, and then you’ve got a pointer to a parameter without the compiler being aware of it. But this is all explicitly UB, so it’s ok for the compiler to be unaware of it, and it’s free to do whatever codegen it wants given the assumption that UB can never happen.
The point is that on systems where that code returns 42, `p` has the exact same value it would if I did `int *p = &x;` instead, but not the same provenance.
And because C++ says "one past the end" pointers are a thing, both these pointers can exist.
As written p is a one-past-the-end pointer into object arr, but the address one past the end of arr may well be the address of x. If pointers are just addresses, these pointers are the same... right?
Neither C nor C++ currently actually explain how this works for their "abstract machine" in the standards documents. The reality is that your C++ compilers (and any non-toy C compilers) have pointer provenance because it's a nightmare to optimise C programs without, but since it isn't documented anywhere (my understanding is that C23 might fix this for C by taking a TS and an equivalent fix via P2318 could land in C++ 26) it's difficult to say if you ever find bugs in their behaviour.
As written p is a one-past-the-end pointer into object arr, but the address one past the end of arr may well be the address of x. If pointers are just addresses, these pointers are the same... right?
Neither C nor C++ currently actually explain how this works for their "abstract machine" in the standards documents. The reality is that your C++ compilers (and any non-toy C compilers) have pointer provenance because it's a nightmare to optimise C programs without, but since it isn't documented anywhere (my understanding is that C23 might fix this for C by taking a TS and an equivalent fix via P2318 could land in C++ 26) it's difficult to say if you ever find bugs in their behaviour.
> And because C++ says "one past the end" pointers are a thing, both these pointers can exist.
While one-past-the-end pointers are allowed to exist, they are not allowed to be dereferenced.
> these pointers are the same... right
The entire point of provenance is that even though their numerical values are the same, they are not the same.
> Neither C nor C++ currently actually explain how this works for their "abstract machine" in the standards documents.
While it isn't mentioned explicitly, it can be inferred from other things that the standard does say. The compiler authors didn't just make it up.
While one-past-the-end pointers are allowed to exist, they are not allowed to be dereferenced.
> these pointers are the same... right
The entire point of provenance is that even though their numerical values are the same, they are not the same.
> Neither C nor C++ currently actually explain how this works for their "abstract machine" in the standards documents.
While it isn't mentioned explicitly, it can be inferred from other things that the standard does say. The compiler authors didn't just make it up.
> it can be inferred from other things that the standard does say. The compiler authors didn't just make it up.
They didn't "just make it up" but well, here's (a draft of) TS 6010 explaining where it comes from, alas it's not "inferred from other things that the standard does say" but rather riffing on a phrase from a discussion about a defect report...
""In a committee discussion from 2004 concerning DR260, WG14 confirmed the concept of provenance of pointers, introduced as means to track and distinguish pointer values that represent storage instances with same address but non-overlapping lifetimes. Implementations started to use that concept, in optimisations relying on provenance-based alias analysis, without it ever being clearly or formally defined, and without it being integrated consistently with the rest of the C standard.""
TS 6010 will, some day, actually define how this works. Well, it will define how it should work, and assuming compiler vendors can be bothered to implement TS 6010 then it becomes how it actually works.
In TS 6010 (which again, is not how your C or C++ compiler works today, and in the best case won't be how your C++ compiler is required to work until at least 2027 or so) the rules go roughly like this:
* If you've got an actual pointer to a living object via some legitimate means, e.g. you used the & operator in C, that works
* If you try to make pointers from somewhere else, e.g. doing arithmetic on pointers that point to a different object, this only works if you've previously done some operation which might cause non-pointer stuff to be aware of this pointer, e.g. you cast a pointer to an integral type or you type-punned a pointer and then looked at the bytes
* However, the compiler is obliged to give you the benefit of the doubt about pointer types, if it's possible you knew how to make a Doodad* with this address in it, then the fact that you also knew how to make a Foo* with the same address doesn't matter, your program is allowed to make a Doodad* not a Foo* if it wants
Thus, your example up thread is still Undefined Behaviour under TS 6010, because you've got no reason to believe the memory layout is the way it actually was. But if you use some type punning hack to get the address of x into that pointer instead, TS 6010 says that works and is not Undefined Behaviour.
They didn't "just make it up" but well, here's (a draft of) TS 6010 explaining where it comes from, alas it's not "inferred from other things that the standard does say" but rather riffing on a phrase from a discussion about a defect report...
""In a committee discussion from 2004 concerning DR260, WG14 confirmed the concept of provenance of pointers, introduced as means to track and distinguish pointer values that represent storage instances with same address but non-overlapping lifetimes. Implementations started to use that concept, in optimisations relying on provenance-based alias analysis, without it ever being clearly or formally defined, and without it being integrated consistently with the rest of the C standard.""
TS 6010 will, some day, actually define how this works. Well, it will define how it should work, and assuming compiler vendors can be bothered to implement TS 6010 then it becomes how it actually works.
In TS 6010 (which again, is not how your C or C++ compiler works today, and in the best case won't be how your C++ compiler is required to work until at least 2027 or so) the rules go roughly like this:
* If you've got an actual pointer to a living object via some legitimate means, e.g. you used the & operator in C, that works
* If you try to make pointers from somewhere else, e.g. doing arithmetic on pointers that point to a different object, this only works if you've previously done some operation which might cause non-pointer stuff to be aware of this pointer, e.g. you cast a pointer to an integral type or you type-punned a pointer and then looked at the bytes
* However, the compiler is obliged to give you the benefit of the doubt about pointer types, if it's possible you knew how to make a Doodad* with this address in it, then the fact that you also knew how to make a Foo* with the same address doesn't matter, your program is allowed to make a Doodad* not a Foo* if it wants
Thus, your example up thread is still Undefined Behaviour under TS 6010, because you've got no reason to believe the memory layout is the way it actually was. But if you use some type punning hack to get the address of x into that pointer instead, TS 6010 says that works and is not Undefined Behaviour.
C/C++ language lawyering (which I did as a hobbyist a few years ago) reminds me a lot of SCOTUS and US constitution debates these days.
Imagine the parameter is passed on the stack, I can take the address of a local variable (which in general forces it to be on the stack), I can then walk up the stack from that address to where the parameter is.
This is undefined behavior. Because it is UB that compiler is allowed to assume it cannot happen. Therefore I have the address of a parameter, and can pass that to a closure or whatever, and the parameter has escaped, but the compiler doesn't know.
More importantly by definition the compiler does not need to know, because a program that does that is no longer well defined.
This is undefined behavior. Because it is UB that compiler is allowed to assume it cannot happen. Therefore I have the address of a parameter, and can pass that to a closure or whatever, and the parameter has escaped, but the compiler doesn't know.
More importantly by definition the compiler does not need to know, because a program that does that is no longer well defined.
Why not just use parentheses, because, you know, templates are just AOT-functions behind the scenes! Try to come up with an example where this syntax is worse than (angle or square) brackets...
[deleted]
I really think the most exciting feature of Carbon (indeed, it's justification for existence) is its backwards compatibility with C++, followed closely by it's more modern and flexible governance structure. Even the docs in the repo say you should avoid Carbon unless you have lots of C++ code you need to interact with.
To be fair, the compatibility is a design goal, not a complete feature as such.
Even C++ struggles to be compatible with C++. I expect Carbon to have at least as hard a time with it, especially given the "bazaar" that is the C++ build and packaging ecosystem.
I also expect that Carbon will have a hard time tracking C++ as it evolves. It could freeze C++ feature development? Or it could target an old and aging C++ standard?
Point is, I'm not taking C++ compatibility as a given. It seems very hard and may require a lot of big tradeoffs.
Even C++ struggles to be compatible with C++. I expect Carbon to have at least as hard a time with it, especially given the "bazaar" that is the C++ build and packaging ecosystem.
I also expect that Carbon will have a hard time tracking C++ as it evolves. It could freeze C++ feature development? Or it could target an old and aging C++ standard?
Point is, I'm not taking C++ compatibility as a given. It seems very hard and may require a lot of big tradeoffs.
The compatibility target is C++17, which I imagine was chosen primarily to avoid the complexity of modules in C++20. They're also excluding non-trivial preprocessor macros, and saying that you'll probably have to write a bit of glue code in some unusual situations.
It's a very realistic take on C++ interop, but still well beyond anything offered by other languages.
It's a very realistic take on C++ interop, but still well beyond anything offered by other languages.
If the goal of Carbon is considered to be an off-ramp for Google's C++ projects, then Carbon does not have to evolve with C++. Google can just say "we use up to C++17 and Carbon" for these projects.
Yeah, but there will probably be a window in which that offramp is generally interesting. If the worldwide C++ codebase moves along, carbon becomes less accessible as a viable choice.
Ironically, Google (googletest, gRPC, etc.) has been more agressive than most in dropping support for older C++ standards.
Ironically, Google (googletest, gRPC, etc.) has been more agressive than most in dropping support for older C++ standards.
Since Apple and Google have focused on their own languages, clang steam went out, as no one else seems that interested in improving ISO C++ support, rather the LLVM foundations, which require C++17 as basis.
If the likes of Intel, AMD, ARM, IBM, Embarcadero,.... don't step up in ISO C++ support at upstream, clang will stay mostly C++17 with some bits and pieces from C++20.
It is already ironic, that after so many years of being joked for their non-standard extensions, VC++ has the best ISO C++20 support.
If the likes of Intel, AMD, ARM, IBM, Embarcadero,.... don't step up in ISO C++ support at upstream, clang will stay mostly C++17 with some bits and pieces from C++20.
It is already ironic, that after so many years of being joked for their non-standard extensions, VC++ has the best ISO C++20 support.
Some of the biggest problems with C++ come from its backwards compatibility with C. Yes, it wins you users in the short term, but it's a pain to support as both languages evolve
The binary compatibility is the big deal. The other safe languages have explicitly taken the view the interop with C++ is bad, and so we should instead do interop with the significantly less safe C instead.
The real killer is that the lack of any interaction with C++ means that you can’t do any real incremental adoption of one of those safe languages in any big security critical projects. Saying that the solution to C++ is to just not use it ignores the reality that C++ exists, and large projects in C++ exist. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like C++.
The final problem with the safe languages - with the exception of swift - is that they are all hell bent on not providing even just basic ABI stability. It doesn’t matter how “safe” your language is if the first thing you have to do is make a pure C (even losing potential for automatic lifetime management the C++ would allow) interface.
So I can have two libraries both written in rust, and the entire safety of it is contingent on each library talking to the other through a C API.
The real killer is that the lack of any interaction with C++ means that you can’t do any real incremental adoption of one of those safe languages in any big security critical projects. Saying that the solution to C++ is to just not use it ignores the reality that C++ exists, and large projects in C++ exist. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like C++.
The final problem with the safe languages - with the exception of swift - is that they are all hell bent on not providing even just basic ABI stability. It doesn’t matter how “safe” your language is if the first thing you have to do is make a pure C (even losing potential for automatic lifetime management the C++ would allow) interface.
So I can have two libraries both written in rust, and the entire safety of it is contingent on each library talking to the other through a C API.
> The other safe languages have explicitly taken the view the interop with C++ is bad
I think it's more that interop with C++ is hard and ultimately a lot less valuable than interop with C, which is what the vast majority of languages use for FFI.
> It doesn’t matter how “safe” your language is if the first thing you have to do is make a pure C (even losing potential for automatic lifetime management the C++ would allow) interface.
I don't see how that leads to "it doesn't matter"
I think it's more that interop with C++ is hard and ultimately a lot less valuable than interop with C, which is what the vast majority of languages use for FFI.
> It doesn’t matter how “safe” your language is if the first thing you have to do is make a pure C (even losing potential for automatic lifetime management the C++ would allow) interface.
I don't see how that leads to "it doesn't matter"
If you consider the context of Carbon (Google having a _lot_ of C++), solving for "interop with C++ is hard" might be considered worth the price.
Whether that's true in practice...? I guess we'll need a few more years to tell.
Whether that's true in practice...? I guess we'll need a few more years to tell.
Of course, that's why they're building it. They're solving a very specific, niche, hard problem. It would make no sense for other languages, which want to solve more general problems, to tackle C++ interop over C.
I do think this is very much a google project specifically because they have a lot of C++ and recognize that there needs to be a path to a memory safe environment, and that is why this project exists.
But I don't think the goal is inherently wrong, nor do I think it's niche - there is a lot of C++ in the world, and much of it would benefit from being memory safe. A lot of the largest projects and certainly many of the most heavily used software projects are written in C++. I think you'd agree that having them no longer be be trapped in a memory unsafety tarpit would be a Good Thing.
Let's imagine someone came out with a magic C++ compiler that had 100% source and ABI compatibility and had no performance costs, but was completely memory safe - remember "magic". You'd obviously expect, if not demand, that every C++ project switch to that magic compiler. So let's imagine we're on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is the memory safety of current compilers and 10 is our magic clearly impossible one. Obviously every step we can go towards 10 is great, but is going to come with trade offs in adoption cost. So on another 1 to 10 scale where 1 is rewriting in some other random language (rust, etc) and 10 is your current compiler, then you want the new language to be as close to 10 as possible. One thing you could do is build all your code with ASAN or a similar mechanism, that would have low adoption cost, a dramatic improvement in runtime safety, but a huge performance cost (time for another 1 to 10 scale?).
Carbon appears to be an attempt to design a language with a reasonably high score in all of the scales - no 10s, but mostly 7s or something. I personally think that there are things we could do to C++ that would make a meaningful improvement to safety without having the solution be "rewrite in other language", but I won't fault a project saying "we'll support incremental adoption" as their adoption path in exchange for stronger safety.
But I don't think the goal is inherently wrong, nor do I think it's niche - there is a lot of C++ in the world, and much of it would benefit from being memory safe. A lot of the largest projects and certainly many of the most heavily used software projects are written in C++. I think you'd agree that having them no longer be be trapped in a memory unsafety tarpit would be a Good Thing.
Let's imagine someone came out with a magic C++ compiler that had 100% source and ABI compatibility and had no performance costs, but was completely memory safe - remember "magic". You'd obviously expect, if not demand, that every C++ project switch to that magic compiler. So let's imagine we're on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is the memory safety of current compilers and 10 is our magic clearly impossible one. Obviously every step we can go towards 10 is great, but is going to come with trade offs in adoption cost. So on another 1 to 10 scale where 1 is rewriting in some other random language (rust, etc) and 10 is your current compiler, then you want the new language to be as close to 10 as possible. One thing you could do is build all your code with ASAN or a similar mechanism, that would have low adoption cost, a dramatic improvement in runtime safety, but a huge performance cost (time for another 1 to 10 scale?).
Carbon appears to be an attempt to design a language with a reasonably high score in all of the scales - no 10s, but mostly 7s or something. I personally think that there are things we could do to C++ that would make a meaningful improvement to safety without having the solution be "rewrite in other language", but I won't fault a project saying "we'll support incremental adoption" as their adoption path in exchange for stronger safety.
> I think it's more that interop with C++ is hard and ultimately a lot less valuable than interop with C, which is what the vast majority of languages use for FFI.
Interop with C is trivial, and that is why everyone has that - all you have to do is expose the primitive types (e.g. ints of varying sizes, floats of various sizes), pointers for anything heap allocated or with non-trivial copy/destroy, and pure structs.
Interop with C++ is hard, but you can at least start off without dealing with exposing template types and functions, and then C++ intro reduces to the above C functionality with some fancy pants layout for vtables.
Supporting interop at a C API level is fine as your FFI to other languages as a library, but dropping your safety guarantees as a library talking to other code written in your own language is counterproductive. Because the first thing anyone needs to do is that "rare" FFI work of recreating a memory safe wrapper around a system library.
> I don't see how that leads to "it doesn't matter"
Ok fair cop, that was a little strong, or at least insufficiently qualified.
I'll try again:
The safety of a new language doesn't matter to existing software, if there is not a reasonable adoption path for that software.
Obviously being able to implement new code in a memory safe language that has modern features and a trivial path to calling C code (as opposed to the historical "safe" language Java for which talking to non-Java - even plain C - is absolute misery).
But the largest sources of memory safety related security bugs nowadays are large existing codebases. Some like linux are plain C, and so using C as your FFI isn't adding any more safety issues than already exist, and the existing code is all by definition just C types that can be easily accessed, copied, etc as they're all just trivial bunch of bytes.
But some of the largest software in use is C++. Most obviously browser engines which by design are required to load arbitrary data from arbitrary locations, then intentionally give that arbitrary data a full near arbitrary execution Turing machine, but there are a bunch of other very large, and critical, projects.
Not having an interop story with C++ means that if any of these projects wish to adopt some new safe language, are stuck with having no transition path. Even Mozilla, who created rust, have only had partial success adopting rust in gecko, like their layout engine where the "transition" was rewrite the entire engine, and when we're done swap the engines wholesale.
For other libraries it means a large API performance regression because you have to add a pile of marshaling logic to wrap the mandatory C interface. Obviously this marshaling also impacts projects with C APIs but we're going to pretend for now that there's no heap allocation being introduced.
Interop with C is trivial, and that is why everyone has that - all you have to do is expose the primitive types (e.g. ints of varying sizes, floats of various sizes), pointers for anything heap allocated or with non-trivial copy/destroy, and pure structs.
Interop with C++ is hard, but you can at least start off without dealing with exposing template types and functions, and then C++ intro reduces to the above C functionality with some fancy pants layout for vtables.
Supporting interop at a C API level is fine as your FFI to other languages as a library, but dropping your safety guarantees as a library talking to other code written in your own language is counterproductive. Because the first thing anyone needs to do is that "rare" FFI work of recreating a memory safe wrapper around a system library.
> I don't see how that leads to "it doesn't matter"
Ok fair cop, that was a little strong, or at least insufficiently qualified.
I'll try again:
The safety of a new language doesn't matter to existing software, if there is not a reasonable adoption path for that software.
Obviously being able to implement new code in a memory safe language that has modern features and a trivial path to calling C code (as opposed to the historical "safe" language Java for which talking to non-Java - even plain C - is absolute misery).
But the largest sources of memory safety related security bugs nowadays are large existing codebases. Some like linux are plain C, and so using C as your FFI isn't adding any more safety issues than already exist, and the existing code is all by definition just C types that can be easily accessed, copied, etc as they're all just trivial bunch of bytes.
But some of the largest software in use is C++. Most obviously browser engines which by design are required to load arbitrary data from arbitrary locations, then intentionally give that arbitrary data a full near arbitrary execution Turing machine, but there are a bunch of other very large, and critical, projects.
Not having an interop story with C++ means that if any of these projects wish to adopt some new safe language, are stuck with having no transition path. Even Mozilla, who created rust, have only had partial success adopting rust in gecko, like their layout engine where the "transition" was rewrite the entire engine, and when we're done swap the engines wholesale.
For other libraries it means a large API performance regression because you have to add a pile of marshaling logic to wrap the mandatory C interface. Obviously this marshaling also impacts projects with C APIs but we're going to pretend for now that there's no heap allocation being introduced.
> The other safe languages have explicitly taken the view the interop with C++ is bad
It's not that it's inherently bad, it's just insanely difficult to do and, probably, isn't worth the pain. Carbon's approach to solving this problem includes embedding a custom C++ compiler as part of its toolchain, and at this point it's just the idea, who knows if they will be able to actually do it.
> they are all hell bent on not providing even just basic ABI stability
Right, the famous stable C++ ABI
It's not that it's inherently bad, it's just insanely difficult to do and, probably, isn't worth the pain. Carbon's approach to solving this problem includes embedding a custom C++ compiler as part of its toolchain, and at this point it's just the idea, who knows if they will be able to actually do it.
> they are all hell bent on not providing even just basic ABI stability
Right, the famous stable C++ ABI
...yes? The C++ is absolutely ABI stable, and is described in excruciating detail, as demonstrated by all those C++ libraries, that you don't have to recompile for on every OS update.
I suspect you're confusing when you make an ABI change, without changing the API, which is indeed an easy thing to do: You have to make sure that you only add members to the end of objects, however that exact constraint also applies to C.
I suspect you're confusing when you make an ABI change, without changing the API, which is indeed an easy thing to do: You have to make sure that you only add members to the end of objects, however that exact constraint also applies to C.
> The C++ is absolutely ABI stable
C++ ABI doesn't even exist, there are several competing standards (much fewer now than there used to be) and nothing is guaranteed even between different compiler versions, let alone different compilers. Not that long ago we used to have two implementations of std::string in gcc you had to choose from and if the library you're linking with chose another one, you were out of luck.
C++ ABI doesn't even exist, there are several competing standards (much fewer now than there used to be) and nothing is guaranteed even between different compiler versions, let alone different compilers. Not that long ago we used to have two implementations of std::string in gcc you had to choose from and if the library you're linking with chose another one, you were out of luck.
A thing that does not exist, still is leveraged to build whole distros, and its too high stability resulted in the creation of Carbon.
This happens to work on Linux where the two major compilers (gcc and clang) are (mostly?) compatible. Windows is a different story: C++ code build with MSCV is generally not compatible with GCC/clang and vice versa, the most notable differences being vtable layout and default 32-bit calling conventions.
[edit: and I just realized I replied to you elsewhere. sigh. keeping it classy :-/]
Windows is a different platform, so comparing it to linux isn't relevant, any more than saying I can't run the code I compiled for sparc on a ppc Mac.
Windows is a different platform, so comparing it to linux isn't relevant, any more than saying I can't run the code I compiled for sparc on a ppc Mac.
But "C++ on Linux" isn't "C++". It's a subset of C++ usage. The lack of competing compilers on some OS might be a feature of those OS, or in the eyes of some mabye even a failure of those OS, but it's certainly no feature of the language. ABI compatibility isn't about using the same binary on different OS, it's about running binaries from different compilers/compiler versions/compiler configurations in the same process.
The point is: C++ libraries compiled for Windows with MSVC are not ABI compatible with C++ libraries compiled for Windows by GCC or clang.
[deleted]
Fragile base class problem is solved, then? When did that happen?
No, but that's also not relevant as C++ is ABI stable. I can take any C++ compiler, and I can compile any C++ library, and then I can take some other compiler and compile some other piece of C++ that calls my library, and it will Just Work.
I can then go back to my library, and make a bunch of ABI safe changes, just as I would have to do in C, and compile my library again, with yet another compiler. At that point the program that was using the older version of my library, would continue to work with the new build of my library without needing to be recompiled.
This is because C++ is ABI stable.
If I am in C++, and I make an ABI breaking change to something that is used as a base class elsewhere, then I have broken the ABI.
But this problem also exists in C, for exactly the same reason, for example lets make some silly example C
If I am a C library, and my header declares a struct
That's the fragile base class problem.
If you are making an API that will have ABI stability requirements you have to expend quite a bit of effort designing the API so it's not only pleasant to use, but also can be evolved without breaking the ABI. As with C APIs, the people who make C++ APIs, know how to make them robust as well.
That said you could have a C or C++ ABI that is ABI stable, it just hurts performance, and obviously adopting that would break ABI :D
Anyway, the problem with what rust and co are saying, is that the same source can result in different ABIs from one compiler version to the next, or for one API to compile to a different ABI depending on what the rest of the code in the project is doing.
That means the OS can't use the safe language as an actual OS API, which I just think is wasting an opportunity.
Swift manages, and ostensibly performs the same kind of optimizations within a module, which is most of what you want. That said because it's the system API all objects are refcounted, and the recount is atomic - I was writing a raytracer in it (this is how I learn programming languages) and the refcount overhead was annoying to deal with.
Obviously there are trade offs in all the choices, but I still feel like rust, etc could do more. Rust has rich support for annotations, so an "abi_stable" annotation seems like it would be perfectly reasonable - it would be in keeping with rust's general theme of the default behaviour not having any implicit performance costs, but would be easy and very clear when you were making something into an API.
I can then go back to my library, and make a bunch of ABI safe changes, just as I would have to do in C, and compile my library again, with yet another compiler. At that point the program that was using the older version of my library, would continue to work with the new build of my library without needing to be recompiled.
This is because C++ is ABI stable.
If I am in C++, and I make an ABI breaking change to something that is used as a base class elsewhere, then I have broken the ABI.
But this problem also exists in C, for exactly the same reason, for example lets make some silly example C
If I am a C library, and my header declares a struct
struct AwesomeThing {
intptr_t foo;
};
void doSomething(struct AwesomeThing* thing) {
thing->foo = 0;
}
struct ImAwesomeToo {
struct AwesomeThing theAwesomest;
int* thisFieldIsGreat;
};
int doSomethingElse() {
struct ImAwesomeToo thing;
thing.thisFieldIsGreat = malloc(sizeof(int));
doSomething(&thing.theAwesomest);
free(thing.thisFieldIsGreat);
}
struct AwesomeThing {
intptr_t foo;
double bar;
}
void doSomething(struct AwesomeThing* thing) {
thing->bar = 42;
}
That's the fragile base class problem.
If you are making an API that will have ABI stability requirements you have to expend quite a bit of effort designing the API so it's not only pleasant to use, but also can be evolved without breaking the ABI. As with C APIs, the people who make C++ APIs, know how to make them robust as well.
That said you could have a C or C++ ABI that is ABI stable, it just hurts performance, and obviously adopting that would break ABI :D
Anyway, the problem with what rust and co are saying, is that the same source can result in different ABIs from one compiler version to the next, or for one API to compile to a different ABI depending on what the rest of the code in the project is doing.
That means the OS can't use the safe language as an actual OS API, which I just think is wasting an opportunity.
Swift manages, and ostensibly performs the same kind of optimizations within a module, which is most of what you want. That said because it's the system API all objects are refcounted, and the recount is atomic - I was writing a raytracer in it (this is how I learn programming languages) and the refcount overhead was annoying to deal with.
Obviously there are trade offs in all the choices, but I still feel like rust, etc could do more. Rust has rich support for annotations, so an "abi_stable" annotation seems like it would be perfectly reasonable - it would be in keeping with rust's general theme of the default behaviour not having any implicit performance costs, but would be easy and very clear when you were making something into an API.
> As with C APIs, the people who make C++ APIs, know how to make them robust as well.
It seems too optimistic for me. I use Gentoo, and I believe that the only reason I have no such troubles is Gentoo with all its maintainers who do a great work of testing different combinations of libraries. And of course `ebuild` that can rebuild libc.so without breaking the system. I tried it once when I just started with linux, and I failed. Never tried to do it again myself, I let `ebuild` do it. It is not so easy, you know, to change version of a library which is a dependency of every binary in the system. And it is a C library. I wouldn't even try to do it, if it was a C++ library. Though who knows, two decades ago when I started with linux I probably was dumb enough to try.
It seems too optimistic for me. I use Gentoo, and I believe that the only reason I have no such troubles is Gentoo with all its maintainers who do a great work of testing different combinations of libraries. And of course `ebuild` that can rebuild libc.so without breaking the system. I tried it once when I just started with linux, and I failed. Never tried to do it again myself, I let `ebuild` do it. It is not so easy, you know, to change version of a library which is a dependency of every binary in the system. And it is a C library. I wouldn't even try to do it, if it was a C++ library. Though who knows, two decades ago when I started with linux I probably was dumb enough to try.
The C++ standard does not define an ABI.
> I can take any C++ compiler, and I can compile any C++ library, and then I can take some other compiler and compile some other piece of C++ that calls my library, and it will Just Work.
This is most definitely not true. It just happens that clang and gcc are mostly compatible, but MSVC and clang/gcc is not! For example, vtables are implemented differently and therefore virtual method calls can crash (unless you follow certain rules, e.g. no virtual destructors, no overloaded virtual methods, etc.)
With 32-bit code, compilers won't even use the same calling convention by default... (look up 'thiscall')
EDIT: strange to see that someone downvoted...
> I can take any C++ compiler, and I can compile any C++ library, and then I can take some other compiler and compile some other piece of C++ that calls my library, and it will Just Work.
This is most definitely not true. It just happens that clang and gcc are mostly compatible, but MSVC and clang/gcc is not! For example, vtables are implemented differently and therefore virtual method calls can crash (unless you follow certain rules, e.g. no virtual destructors, no overloaded virtual methods, etc.)
With 32-bit code, compilers won't even use the same calling convention by default... (look up 'thiscall')
EDIT: strange to see that someone downvoted...
[edit due to the above edit I just saw: wasn't me, I didn't see what you said as being inherently bad and so deserving of downvoting, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered replying :-/]
That sounds like what you're saying is that gcc or clang fail to conform to the platform ABI, which is a compiler bug. If a compiler wishes to ignore platform ABI, it doesn't make the ABI not a thing.
But if you are comparing ABI compatibility to MSVC, you are comparing the ABI used by the code generated by clang or gcc to what is by definition the windows platform ABI. If the code generated by a compiler targeting a given platform, does not match the ABI used by that platform, the problem is the compiler is generating broken code.
> vtables are implemented differently and therefore virtual method calls can crash
No, vtables are implemented incorrectly by the compiler. If the vtable for a type laid down by gcc or clang crashes when it is passed to a OS function, that means the compiler is broken, as the compiler has decided to ignore the platform ABI. Again, if I write a compiler that chooses to use the wrong ABI when interacting with the host OS, I don't get to claim that it is the language's fault, or the OS, or the ABI. Similarly I don't get compile code for linux that makes windows system calls, and then complain that there isn't a windows ABI.
Here is the thing: The ABI for vtables is specified for every non-trivial platform. The ABI for argument parameter ordering is specified for every platform. The ABI for struct layout and struct padding is specified for every platform.
"thiscall" is the ABI for member functions on windows, it's not some magical non-abi thing, is is by definition _the_ abi. There needs to be a name for it, because documentation at the very least has to be able to distinguish it from "cdecl". Importantly, claiming that it's a sign that C++ doesn't have an ABI, or that ABI isn't stable, is simply incorrect. The fact that it exists as a name we can reference is an indication that the ABI matters enough that it is specified. Claiming it's evidence of a lack of ABI is like claiming the C doesn't have an ABI because gcc has stdcall and cdecl - and thiscall is useful MS choosing it as the ABI for member functions on i386 is a reasonable performance win that gcc chose not to do, in favor of using cdecl everywhere, even if cdecl was a slow choice.
There is generally a pile of sadness when dealing with 32bit C++ as the various platform ABIs came into existence when C++ was new, and so the ABI for it on any given platform just happened to be whatever happened to be used by the first releases of the primary C++ compilers for those platforms. That's also why those ABIs - for windows, linux, macOS, etc - tended to not be super well designed or systematically created. Hence even when trying to match ABIs it was easy to hit edge cases where things went horribly wrong between completely different compilers. However even then, generation to generation of each of those compilers maintained ABI stability with themselves at least. Mercifully in the consumer 64-bit every compiler seems to have essentially gravitated to the itanium ABI, which is an actionably thought our and designed rather than evolved as the language is being invented.
So continuing to claim that there is not an ABI, or that that ABI is not stable, or whatever other claim you wish to make, does not make it become true just because you don't like C++. It also does not become true because you are a fan of a language that doesn't want to provide a stable ABI. The historical problems of gcc vs msvc were a product of how the respective ABIs were developed, but on architectures that are more modern it should not be a problem, and I'm sure that if you find places where the compilers differ from the host OS on a more modern platform the developers are much less likely to ignore the issue vs. i386 where they are stuck with whatever their exact ABI was in the early 90s.
In the end, to be very clear, C++ has an ABI, it is stable - a fact demonstrated by Windows, XNU, QT, etc all existing, and continuing to successfully exist. Technically the c++ standard library demonstrates this as well but given the various implementations of the standard library are now maintained largely by their respective compiler projects, that seems like cheating.
That sounds like what you're saying is that gcc or clang fail to conform to the platform ABI, which is a compiler bug. If a compiler wishes to ignore platform ABI, it doesn't make the ABI not a thing.
But if you are comparing ABI compatibility to MSVC, you are comparing the ABI used by the code generated by clang or gcc to what is by definition the windows platform ABI. If the code generated by a compiler targeting a given platform, does not match the ABI used by that platform, the problem is the compiler is generating broken code.
> vtables are implemented differently and therefore virtual method calls can crash
No, vtables are implemented incorrectly by the compiler. If the vtable for a type laid down by gcc or clang crashes when it is passed to a OS function, that means the compiler is broken, as the compiler has decided to ignore the platform ABI. Again, if I write a compiler that chooses to use the wrong ABI when interacting with the host OS, I don't get to claim that it is the language's fault, or the OS, or the ABI. Similarly I don't get compile code for linux that makes windows system calls, and then complain that there isn't a windows ABI.
Here is the thing: The ABI for vtables is specified for every non-trivial platform. The ABI for argument parameter ordering is specified for every platform. The ABI for struct layout and struct padding is specified for every platform.
"thiscall" is the ABI for member functions on windows, it's not some magical non-abi thing, is is by definition _the_ abi. There needs to be a name for it, because documentation at the very least has to be able to distinguish it from "cdecl". Importantly, claiming that it's a sign that C++ doesn't have an ABI, or that ABI isn't stable, is simply incorrect. The fact that it exists as a name we can reference is an indication that the ABI matters enough that it is specified. Claiming it's evidence of a lack of ABI is like claiming the C doesn't have an ABI because gcc has stdcall and cdecl - and thiscall is useful MS choosing it as the ABI for member functions on i386 is a reasonable performance win that gcc chose not to do, in favor of using cdecl everywhere, even if cdecl was a slow choice.
There is generally a pile of sadness when dealing with 32bit C++ as the various platform ABIs came into existence when C++ was new, and so the ABI for it on any given platform just happened to be whatever happened to be used by the first releases of the primary C++ compilers for those platforms. That's also why those ABIs - for windows, linux, macOS, etc - tended to not be super well designed or systematically created. Hence even when trying to match ABIs it was easy to hit edge cases where things went horribly wrong between completely different compilers. However even then, generation to generation of each of those compilers maintained ABI stability with themselves at least. Mercifully in the consumer 64-bit every compiler seems to have essentially gravitated to the itanium ABI, which is an actionably thought our and designed rather than evolved as the language is being invented.
So continuing to claim that there is not an ABI, or that that ABI is not stable, or whatever other claim you wish to make, does not make it become true just because you don't like C++. It also does not become true because you are a fan of a language that doesn't want to provide a stable ABI. The historical problems of gcc vs msvc were a product of how the respective ABIs were developed, but on architectures that are more modern it should not be a problem, and I'm sure that if you find places where the compilers differ from the host OS on a more modern platform the developers are much less likely to ignore the issue vs. i386 where they are stuck with whatever their exact ABI was in the early 90s.
In the end, to be very clear, C++ has an ABI, it is stable - a fact demonstrated by Windows, XNU, QT, etc all existing, and continuing to successfully exist. Technically the c++ standard library demonstrates this as well but given the various implementations of the standard library are now maintained largely by their respective compiler projects, that seems like cheating.
[deleted]
Surely if GCC's vtable layout isn't compatible with that used by MSVC then COM couldn't possibly work?
Not much of the rest of the Win32 API would care though, other than DirectX and possibly a few more modern additions I'm not aware of.
Luckily, GCC's vtable layout is compatible with COM, but that's because COM puts certain restrictions on how you write C++ classes. Most notably, you must not define a virtual destructor and you must not use overloaded virtual methods. It just so happens that the main difference between MSVC and GCC/Clang concern the implementation of virtual destructors (the former uses 1 entry, the latter uses 2 entries) and the vtable ordering of overloaded virtual methods. This means that COM is not affected!
Thanks for your reply!
First off, I work mainly in C++ (Windows, Linux, macOS and some embedded) and I don't hate the language. I really wished that C++ had a well-specified ABI, but the sad reality is that it doesn't.
> if the code generated by a compiler targeting a given platform, does not match the ABI used by that platform, the problem is the compiler is generating broken code.
The compiler only has to correctly implement the C++ standard. The standard does not specify things like calling conventions, struct padding, implementation of virtual functions, so the compiler is free to do anything it wants. (Whether that is a good idea is another topic.)
> No, vtables are implemented incorrectly by the compiler.
The C++ standard does not even mandate that virtual functions are implemented with vtables.
> The ABI for vtables is specified for every non-trivial platform. The ABI for argument parameter ordering is specified for every platform. The ABI for struct layout and struct padding is specified for every platform.
AFAIK, Microsoft does not officially specify a C++ ABI at all (correct me if I'm wrong!) The only thing that comes close is COM - which can be implemented with a restricted subset of C++, but is really language-agnostic.
> Importantly, claiming that it's a sign that C++ doesn't have an ABI, or that ABI isn't stable, is simply incorrect. The fact that it exists as a name we can reference is an indication that the ABI matters enough that it is specified.
'thiscall' is not part of the C++ standard, it is a calling convention invented by Microsoft. The C++ standard does not talk about calling conventions at all.
> Mercifully in the consumer 64-bit every compiler seems to have essentially gravitated to the itanium ABI
This is true on Linux, but Microsoft specifies its own 64-bit calling convention (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/x64-calling-conve...) and leaves other parts of the C++ ABI unspecified.
Generally, you are right that some platforms, like Linux, have a de-facto C++ ABI, but that is not the same as saying that C++ itself has a well-defined ABI - which is simply not true.
Your initial claim was that binaries compiled with different compilers are always compatible (apart from possible library ABI mismatches). We both may wish this were true, but it is false in the general case (and specifically on Windows).
First off, I work mainly in C++ (Windows, Linux, macOS and some embedded) and I don't hate the language. I really wished that C++ had a well-specified ABI, but the sad reality is that it doesn't.
> if the code generated by a compiler targeting a given platform, does not match the ABI used by that platform, the problem is the compiler is generating broken code.
The compiler only has to correctly implement the C++ standard. The standard does not specify things like calling conventions, struct padding, implementation of virtual functions, so the compiler is free to do anything it wants. (Whether that is a good idea is another topic.)
> No, vtables are implemented incorrectly by the compiler.
The C++ standard does not even mandate that virtual functions are implemented with vtables.
> The ABI for vtables is specified for every non-trivial platform. The ABI for argument parameter ordering is specified for every platform. The ABI for struct layout and struct padding is specified for every platform.
AFAIK, Microsoft does not officially specify a C++ ABI at all (correct me if I'm wrong!) The only thing that comes close is COM - which can be implemented with a restricted subset of C++, but is really language-agnostic.
> Importantly, claiming that it's a sign that C++ doesn't have an ABI, or that ABI isn't stable, is simply incorrect. The fact that it exists as a name we can reference is an indication that the ABI matters enough that it is specified.
'thiscall' is not part of the C++ standard, it is a calling convention invented by Microsoft. The C++ standard does not talk about calling conventions at all.
> Mercifully in the consumer 64-bit every compiler seems to have essentially gravitated to the itanium ABI
This is true on Linux, but Microsoft specifies its own 64-bit calling convention (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/x64-calling-conve...) and leaves other parts of the C++ ABI unspecified.
Generally, you are right that some platforms, like Linux, have a de-facto C++ ABI, but that is not the same as saying that C++ itself has a well-defined ABI - which is simply not true.
Your initial claim was that binaries compiled with different compilers are always compatible (apart from possible library ABI mismatches). We both may wish this were true, but it is false in the general case (and specifically on Windows).
BTW, MSVC has repeatedly broken its ABI in the past. Only since 2015 they guarantee binary compatibility across compilers versions - with certain restrictions: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/porting/binary-compat-2...
> The final problem with the safe languages - with the exception of swift - is that they are all hell bent on not providing even just basic ABI stability. It doesn’t matter how “safe” your language is if the first thing you have to do is make a pure C (even losing potential for automatic lifetime management the C++ would allow) interface.
Carbon isn’t looking to do this either. The “solution” they’ve come up with is that you just recompile everything and get things on the same ABI, which is not surprising considering how Google operates internally.
Carbon isn’t looking to do this either. The “solution” they’ve come up with is that you just recompile everything and get things on the same ABI, which is not surprising considering how Google operates internally.
.NET has always supported interop with C++, first with Managed C++, then C++/CLI, and nowadays via Windows Runtime (C++/CX and C++/WinRT).
Likewise JNI has always had support for COM like models, and the C API is written in such way that the struct layouts can be used as C++ classes instead, with implicit this on method calls.
Likewise JNI has always had support for COM like models, and the C API is written in such way that the struct layouts can be used as C++ classes instead, with implicit this on method calls.
> it's more modern and flexible governance structure
You mean where Google has majority control over what does and does not go into the repo?
You mean where Google has majority control over what does and does not go into the repo?
[deleted]
That's been done before. The original Modula 1 compiler had that. In a language where the default parameter mode is a read-only reference, it's an obvious optimization.
The reverse is true. Anything passed by value can be treated as const reference by the compiler if the compiler knows enough about access and lifetime. The compiler must be able to determine that the parameter is neither deallocated nor modified while the function is using it. Rust compilers should be able to do that.
The reverse is true. Anything passed by value can be treated as const reference by the compiler if the compiler knows enough about access and lifetime. The compiler must be able to determine that the parameter is neither deallocated nor modified while the function is using it. Rust compilers should be able to do that.
The MIPS NUBI ABI from 2005 also proposed this for C:
"Arguments: [...]
Derived types (structures etc) and non-standard scalar types are passed in a register if and only if their memory- stored image is register-size aligned and fits into a register. [...]
All other arguments are passed by reference. The callee must copy the argument if it writes it or takes its address."
ftp://ftp.linux-mips.org//pub/linux/mips/doc/NUBI/MD00438-2C-NUBIDESC-SPC-00.20.pdf
"Arguments: [...]
Derived types (structures etc) and non-standard scalar types are passed in a register if and only if their memory- stored image is register-size aligned and fits into a register. [...]
All other arguments are passed by reference. The callee must copy the argument if it writes it or takes its address."
D and I think Fortran can also do this
At first I thought this was about Mac OS around the 9 and 10 times... but I suppose not everyone is going to make that link with this name.
Apple's Cocoa framework itself reused the name of a 90's visual programming language for kids developed by its own Advanced Technology Group. It was certainly a play on "java for kids."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagecast_Creator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagecast_Creator
That's the first time I heard of Cocoa as "Java for kids". How cute!
You’re certainly not the only one. It’s a confusing choice of naming.
I think the statute of limitations on “confusing name” when Mac OS Carbon was removed from OS X 10 years ago has passed.
Since those old operating systems are now vintage or retro, there have been a few people porting things like Rust, Go and Swift to older Mac OS versions (the ones that use the Toolbox ROM) which was also in the news here.
There is of course no 'registry of allowed names that have aged-out' but there are probably other creative names one could come up with.
There is of course no 'registry of allowed names that have aged-out' but there are probably other creative names one could come up with.
Yeah, I was confused by the name carbon, but am able to recognize that what I think of by default is not relevant anymore.
I hope they picked that name for the same reason Apple picked it: because all life is built on carbon.
Or because Carbon as an element is "C" and "C" is also the language the framework was built for.
Well, Apple was a little clever with Carbon for this reason, because it was a C based API. I'm not sure how you get Carbon from C++.
Also, the UI was called Aqua. So Aqua + Carbon is an interesting metaphor for an OS ecosystem.
Apparently, although it's not likely to occur under most conditions, you can form a monatomic carbon C²⁺ ion by shooting a laser into very high-temperature carbon:
https://sciencetrends.com/the-charge-of-a-carbon-ion/
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4966987
"Up to C⁴⁺ ions are observed."
And I guess you could also write the C²⁺ ion as "C⁺⁺" if you wanted. :-)
https://sciencetrends.com/the-charge-of-a-carbon-ion/
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4966987
"Up to C⁴⁺ ions are observed."
And I guess you could also write the C²⁺ ion as "C⁺⁺" if you wanted. :-)
That just makes the comparison worse, if it's difficult and unstable and almost immediately sheds the +s.
I mean, it's at least a bit less ambiguous than Go.
I got as far as “surely they can’t be talking about OS 9, someone must have recycled the name”
I have to say, and pardon me for saying so, but Carbon seems to be utterly uninteresting to me. They are not solving any interesting problems that shows me that they are creating a modern language.
As an example, look at this issue from the mold linker: https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/584
They are looking at creating an embeddable custom dynamic linker in order to greatly reduce loading times, by fixing locations as the file gets loaded in.
The equivalent in Carbon would (for example) be to create a new type of exception handling that changes how we think about exceptions, performance and their cost. Perhaps something like the static exceptions that Herb Sutter has been working on. Instead, they are not adding exceptions at all.
You will have to excuse my disappointment.
As an example, look at this issue from the mold linker: https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/584
They are looking at creating an embeddable custom dynamic linker in order to greatly reduce loading times, by fixing locations as the file gets loaded in.
The equivalent in Carbon would (for example) be to create a new type of exception handling that changes how we think about exceptions, performance and their cost. Perhaps something like the static exceptions that Herb Sutter has been working on. Instead, they are not adding exceptions at all.
You will have to excuse my disappointment.
Carbon solves a very important problem, to realize Google's vision for C++ which they lost trying to make through ISO.
That is all.
That is all.
what sort of interesting problems do you want Carbon to solve for you?
C++ also pays a price for insisting not only that objects have addresses, but those addresses are distinct.
If you've got a 1.6 billion empty tuples in variable A, 1.4 billion in variable B and 1.8 billion in variable C, C++ can't see a way to do that on a 32-bit operating system. It needs to give each empty tuple an address, so it must think of 4.8 billion integers between 0 and 2^32 and it can't do that, so your program won't work.
Carbon is still far from finished, but if objects needn't have addresses it can do the same as Rust here, and cheerfully handle A, B and C as merely counters, counting 1.6 billion, 1.4 billion and 1.8 billion respectively is fine. Empty tuples are indistinguishable, so I needn't worry about giving you back the "wrong" empty tuple when you remove one, I can just give you a fresh one each time and decrement the counter.
If you've got a 1.6 billion empty tuples in variable A, 1.4 billion in variable B and 1.8 billion in variable C, C++ can't see a way to do that on a 32-bit operating system. It needs to give each empty tuple an address, so it must think of 4.8 billion integers between 0 and 2^32 and it can't do that, so your program won't work.
Carbon is still far from finished, but if objects needn't have addresses it can do the same as Rust here, and cheerfully handle A, B and C as merely counters, counting 1.6 billion, 1.4 billion and 1.8 billion respectively is fine. Empty tuples are indistinguishable, so I needn't worry about giving you back the "wrong" empty tuple when you remove one, I can just give you a fresh one each time and decrement the counter.
Maybe the right question to ask is, why you have 4.8 billion empty tuples? And why you're still on a 32-bit system?
> And why you're still on a 32-bit system
There is a lot of 32 bit microcontrollers, most notable stm32
There is a lot of 32 bit microcontrollers, most notable stm32
Gamedev, presumably. It's not unusual to have a LOT of triangles and coordinates flying around and GameDev is basically locked to C++ (for many good reasons even if I find C++ distasteful).
Admittedly, those probably aren't running on 32-bit systems, nowadays ...
Admittedly, those probably aren't running on 32-bit systems, nowadays ...
Carbon is probably Gamedev's best chance of moving beyond c++
But you are going to need some minimal buy-in from Microsoft first, if not Sony and Nintendo too.
The great thing about carbon is that you can incrementally shift a codebase over from c++, and there are no problems interacting with existing c++ APIs, so the required amount of buy-in is pretty much just "yes, you can use a 3rd party compiler" and maybe some improvements to the debugger.
But you are going to need some minimal buy-in from Microsoft first, if not Sony and Nintendo too.
The great thing about carbon is that you can incrementally shift a codebase over from c++, and there are no problems interacting with existing c++ APIs, so the required amount of buy-in is pretty much just "yes, you can use a 3rd party compiler" and maybe some improvements to the debugger.
What about rust?
It's complicated to call a c++ library from rust.
You actually have to wrap all the c++ functions in c functions, and then call those c functions from rust. Which requires either making manual wrappers, or automated wrapping tools that handle the specific idiosyncrasies of the library you are calling.
Which is a massive barrier; Gamedev standardised on c++ and there are so many c++ libraries.
In comparison, Carbon is designed from the ground up to automatically have bi-directional inter-op with c++. It's what the language is designed to do.
You actually have to wrap all the c++ functions in c functions, and then call those c functions from rust. Which requires either making manual wrappers, or automated wrapping tools that handle the specific idiosyncrasies of the library you are calling.
Which is a massive barrier; Gamedev standardised on c++ and there are so many c++ libraries.
In comparison, Carbon is designed from the ground up to automatically have bi-directional inter-op with c++. It's what the language is designed to do.
As much as I love Rust, it really has a significant impedance mismatch at the low-level with GameDev.
Things must be initialized in Rust. Things must have a single identifiable owner. Things really want to be immutable.
Sure, you can duck these in Rust with lots of "unsafe". But, if you do that, are you really gaining anything from using Rust?
Things must be initialized in Rust. Things must have a single identifiable owner. Things really want to be immutable.
Sure, you can duck these in Rust with lots of "unsafe". But, if you do that, are you really gaining anything from using Rust?
I agree with you that Rust isn't a perfect match for video game development. Jonathan Blow's Jai is targeting that sort of program, it's not offering Rust's safety promises (Jon is confident this doesn't matter) but it can hardly be less safe than C++.
However, the purpose of unsafe is to mark code that does something which a human needs to check for correctness. We're not saying "This isn't OK" but "The compiler can't check this is OK, so a person needs to do so". If you write C++ today, all of your code is like that. I'd be astonished if more than a tiny proportion of the actual game code in a modern video game needed that treatment in Rust.
For example, Rust's approach to late initialization is std::mem::MaybeUninit<T>, a wrapper type which says to the compiler hey, I am not initialized yet, it's OK to write a T value into me, but you can't read my value until somebody says they're done initializing me. The "say you're done initializing" part is indeed unsafe, but that's a small part of the program. That intern writing a zone preview gadget? They don't need to be writing unsafe initialization code, when they try to access preview_zone.orb_color the compiler tells them this is MaybeUninit and so they can't read it. "Huh, apparently orb_color is MaybeUninit ?" "Oh, just show all the orbs in preview as orange, it'll be fine". You just avoided Undefined Behaviour and possibly a trip to the land of "But it works in debug builds".
However, the purpose of unsafe is to mark code that does something which a human needs to check for correctness. We're not saying "This isn't OK" but "The compiler can't check this is OK, so a person needs to do so". If you write C++ today, all of your code is like that. I'd be astonished if more than a tiny proportion of the actual game code in a modern video game needed that treatment in Rust.
For example, Rust's approach to late initialization is std::mem::MaybeUninit<T>, a wrapper type which says to the compiler hey, I am not initialized yet, it's OK to write a T value into me, but you can't read my value until somebody says they're done initializing me. The "say you're done initializing" part is indeed unsafe, but that's a small part of the program. That intern writing a zone preview gadget? They don't need to be writing unsafe initialization code, when they try to access preview_zone.orb_color the compiler tells them this is MaybeUninit and so they can't read it. "Huh, apparently orb_color is MaybeUninit ?" "Oh, just show all the orbs in preview as orange, it'll be fine". You just avoided Undefined Behaviour and possibly a trip to the land of "But it works in debug builds".
And yet…Bevy exists and has a nice API.
> But, if you do that, are you really gaining anything from using Rust?
In each new release of Bevy, they've found soundness bugs with the borrow checker—seems like they're gaining something.
> But, if you do that, are you really gaining anything from using Rust?
In each new release of Bevy, they've found soundness bugs with the borrow checker—seems like they're gaining something.
I work in graphics/directx; I know.
Triangle meshes can be stored quite efficiently and a lot of the modern geometry is tessellated, procedural or replicated.
There are far better optimizations for gamedev like using SOA instead of AOS.
Triangle meshes can be stored quite efficiently and a lot of the modern geometry is tessellated, procedural or replicated.
There are far better optimizations for gamedev like using SOA instead of AOS.
There are a zillion ways to handle sparse arrays or redundant values that don't depend on esoteric language features. You're not even losing any efficiency, you're probably gaining some because you know your domain.
Presumably, your triangles have 3 sides, and your coordinates exist in at least one dimension?
I may be overlooking something, but I don’t see a realistic use case for having multiple empty tuples without an address.
If you have those, I don’t see any way to discriminate between them. If so, why would you ever want to have more than one of a given type? Is there some template code that might accidentally try to create them?
If you have those, I don’t see any way to discriminate between them. If so, why would you ever want to have more than one of a given type? Is there some template code that might accidentally try to create them?
Rust `Set<T>` is implemented as `Map<T, ()>`. Go is similar, but you have to do it manually. Zero-sized types mainly have use in generics (so yes-ish by templates, but not accidental).
Still, why would you ever have multiple, if there’s no way to discriminate between them because you can’t mutate them or obtain their address?
Is that really a problem now that the overwhelming majority of C++ programs run on 64bits platforms?
A better example of address uniqueness being a problem is with code like:
Now, as of C++20, you can reduce sizeof(Foo) to 8 by tagging `marker` as [[no_unique_address]]. However, this has drawbacks. First of all, it's easy to get situations like this in highly generic code, so it's hard to predict where [[no_unique_address]] needs to be applied (and applying it everywhere would be verbose).
Second of all, [[no_unique_address]] is dangerous, because it doesn't just allow empty fields to be omitted, it also allows nonempty fields to have trailing padding bytes reused for other fields. Normally that's okay, but if you have any code that performs memcpy or memset or similar based on the size of a type, such as:
struct Marker {};
struct Foo {
Marker marker;
int64_t number;
};
Now, as of C++20, you can reduce sizeof(Foo) to 8 by tagging `marker` as [[no_unique_address]]. However, this has drawbacks. First of all, it's easy to get situations like this in highly generic code, so it's hard to predict where [[no_unique_address]] needs to be applied (and applying it everywhere would be verbose).
Second of all, [[no_unique_address]] is dangerous, because it doesn't just allow empty fields to be omitted, it also allows nonempty fields to have trailing padding bytes reused for other fields. Normally that's okay, but if you have any code that performs memcpy or memset or similar based on the size of a type, such as:
struct Foo {
Foo(const Foo &other) {
memcpy(this, &other, sizeof(Foo));
}
// …some fields here…
};
I don’t really get the concern here. [[no_unique_address]] seems to be designed for use with empty types. As such, what does it mean to write to such a field? These are really meant to be tags, no?
it could come from a template function which don't have a sfinae branch (or `if constexpr (std::is_empty<T>::value)`) for empty type
> C++ also pays a price for insisting not only that objects have addresses, but those addresses are distinct.
With only three exceptions I can't think of a case where by default one would not want that. In the case you describe you would want all those objects to have unique addresses. If you wanted to have them overlap you should go to the effort to happen the way you want it to -- how could the compiler guess on its own?
The exceptions BTW are union elements, the first class/struct element, and base object addresses (in `class foo : bar ...` the when you make a foo, the address of its bar is the same as the address of the foo itself).
With only three exceptions I can't think of a case where by default one would not want that. In the case you describe you would want all those objects to have unique addresses. If you wanted to have them overlap you should go to the effort to happen the way you want it to -- how could the compiler guess on its own?
The exceptions BTW are union elements, the first class/struct element, and base object addresses (in `class foo : bar ...` the when you make a foo, the address of its bar is the same as the address of the foo itself).
> In the case you describe you would want all those objects to have unique addresses.
I certainly don't, if you want unique addresses for indistiguishable objects I guess C++ is the perfect language for you but, what are you expecting to do with these addresses?
I certainly don't, if you want unique addresses for indistiguishable objects I guess C++ is the perfect language for you but, what are you expecting to do with these addresses?
You made an object rather than using an existing one. How is the compiler supposed to know that you wanted an existing object?
I don't want an existing object? You seem to be having a lot of trouble with this very basic idea. Objects do not necessarily need distinct addresses. "But that's how C++ works" is just a fact about how C++ works, it has no larger significance, and where it conflicts with the sensible way to do things it's actually a defect.
How would you define object identity if different objects can have the same value and the same address?
To my mind, an object is a value with a unique identity. How else would you define it?
And if you want a billion empty values, then yes, those could all be implemented by the same object - it's pretty easy to implement, even though it would be ncie for a compiler to do it automatically (like how Java normally gives you the same Integer object if you box the same int value in two different places, even though it will give you a different Integer of the same value if you explicitly ask for it with new).
To my mind, an object is a value with a unique identity. How else would you define it?
And if you want a billion empty values, then yes, those could all be implemented by the same object - it's pretty easy to implement, even though it would be ncie for a compiler to do it automatically (like how Java normally gives you the same Integer object if you box the same int value in two different places, even though it will give you a different Integer of the same value if you explicitly ask for it with new).
> How would you define object identity
fn main() {
let vs = [(), (), (), (), ()];
for v in vs {
println!("{:?}", v);
}
}
They are the same value, but with different identities. vs[0], vs[1] etc. are different objects, but they are all initialized with the same value. The difference is kind of irrelevant for a constant object like an empty tuple.
But imagine the following program:
By the way, note that your example should be completely equivalent to the following C++ program:
But imagine the following program:
fn main() {
let mut vs = [(1,), (1,), (1,), (1,), (1,)];
vs[0].0=2;
for v in vs {
println!("{:?}", v);
}
}
By the way, note that your example should be completely equivalent to the following C++ program:
int main() {
using namespace std;
auto vs = vector<tuple<>>{tuple<>(), tuple<>(), tuple<>(), tuple<>()};
for (auto v : vs) {
cout << v; //imagine C++ actually had an implemntation of operator<< for tuples...
}
return 0;
}> They are the same value, but with different identities. vs[0], vs[1] etc. are different objects
What allows you to say that they have different identities? They are zero-sized types. Literally zero. `()` is a type and `()` its the only possible value. log(1) = 0 bit. If you look into machine code you will not find anything that you can call an object. The very existence of `()` is a shared dream of a programmer and compiler, and `()` ceased to exist after a compilation.
> But imagine the following program
In this program you are using types of size > 0bit, which allows more than 1 value of that type. But even then I wouldn't bet that they are different objects only because you changed one. If you didn't, it would be completely logical to replace them all with just one value in a memory, while pretending that there are many copies of it.
In this particular case I don't believe rustc would manage to do it even if we drop mutation from the example. And I can't think of a case when it will manage. But I wouldn't bet that such case doesn't exist.
> By the way, note that your example should be completely equivalent to the following C++ program
Hmm... And if we write in C++ something like:
What allows you to say that they have different identities? They are zero-sized types. Literally zero. `()` is a type and `()` its the only possible value. log(1) = 0 bit. If you look into machine code you will not find anything that you can call an object. The very existence of `()` is a shared dream of a programmer and compiler, and `()` ceased to exist after a compilation.
> But imagine the following program
In this program you are using types of size > 0bit, which allows more than 1 value of that type. But even then I wouldn't bet that they are different objects only because you changed one. If you didn't, it would be completely logical to replace them all with just one value in a memory, while pretending that there are many copies of it.
In this particular case I don't believe rustc would manage to do it even if we drop mutation from the example. And I can't think of a case when it will manage. But I wouldn't bet that such case doesn't exist.
> By the way, note that your example should be completely equivalent to the following C++ program
Hmm... And if we write in C++ something like:
fn main() {
let vs = [(), (), (), (), ()];
for i in vs.iter() {
println!("{:?} {:?}", v, v as *const ());
}
}
() 0x7ffdae96bec8
() 0x7ffdae96bec8
() 0x7ffdae96bec8
() 0x7ffdae96bec8
() 0x7ffdae96bec8
> What allows you to say that they have different identities?
Syntactic analogy with non-zero sized types. If you want a special case that says "there is a single object of the zero-sized type" that's ok, but it's a special case. All other types have a difference between object identity and value equality.
> Will all addresses be equal?
No, because C++ doesn't optimize for ZSTs, and it doesn't modify semantics for const. I agree that C++ pays a price for these two things, but I don't think it's because it "insists all objects have different addresses", I believe that is just a consequence to not giving special semantics to const beyond disallowing writes.
Syntactic analogy with non-zero sized types. If you want a special case that says "there is a single object of the zero-sized type" that's ok, but it's a special case. All other types have a difference between object identity and value equality.
> Will all addresses be equal?
No, because C++ doesn't optimize for ZSTs, and it doesn't modify semantics for const. I agree that C++ pays a price for these two things, but I don't think it's because it "insists all objects have different addresses", I believe that is just a consequence to not giving special semantics to const beyond disallowing writes.
What are you expecting to do with 4 billion empty tuples?
In C++, the way around this is to use inheritance rather than members, since base and derived classes may obviously have the same address.
since C++20 you can get around this
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes/no_uni...
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes/no_uni...
comex mentions this above. It's a nice hack, but it doesn't actually fix the problem I was talking about, you can give this attribute to a data member, which allows you to do the ZST marker type trick that is available in other languages, but you can't apply the attribute (at least, not as documented) to a type itself, those empty tuples are obliged to take up one byte each.
But why not use an empty base class instead? That seems both more idiomatic and simpler. And since C++ supports multiple inheritance, there's no limit to how many empty base classes you could have.
Using an empty base class is idiomatic C++ for solving the problem comex is talking about (marker types) although it has some pretty annoying consequences. Whether it's "simpler" probably depends on whether to you "simpler" means, "how I'm used to in C++".
But it doesn't have any bearing on the problem I was talking about, if you were to instantiate your empty class it has non-zero size. C++ just doesn't have ZSTs.
But it doesn't have any bearing on the problem I was talking about, if you were to instantiate your empty class it has non-zero size. C++ just doesn't have ZSTs.
Ok, I misunderstood the thread a bit and was only commenting on the marker issue. I do thing that a type-level marker is "simpler" in a more general sense than checking whether a struct has a particular field, even if that field takes up no space in the struct.
Now, related to ZSTs, I think the main reason why C++ doesn't have this is that C++ really doesn't have any good support for constant values. Sure, you can mark something `const` but that rarely means too much - specifically, it can never add any new semantics to a type, it only removes some options.
One consequence of this is your example - a `const vector<T>` can't be a simple counter of how many T are in the vector even if the T type has a single possible value: the language can't really use the fact that the array is `const` to change its layout.
An even worse consequence is that a `const vector<int> * const` (a const pointer to a const vector of T) is not covariant (it can't be initialized with a const pointer to a const vector of a subtype of T), even though it should be: the language just won't use the fact that it is `const` in this way.
Now, related to ZSTs, I think the main reason why C++ doesn't have this is that C++ really doesn't have any good support for constant values. Sure, you can mark something `const` but that rarely means too much - specifically, it can never add any new semantics to a type, it only removes some options.
One consequence of this is your example - a `const vector<T>` can't be a simple counter of how many T are in the vector even if the T type has a single possible value: the language can't really use the fact that the array is `const` to change its layout.
An even worse consequence is that a `const vector<int> * const` (a const pointer to a const vector of T) is not covariant (it can't be initialized with a const pointer to a const vector of a subtype of T), even though it should be: the language just won't use the fact that it is `const` in this way.
I was very confused by what the author is pointing out in the opening Point / Print example. ("[T]he compiler is allowed to convert that to a T" -> wait, why did the compiler change a struct to an int32?)
I think this boils down to: Carbon defaults to passing parameters that fit in a single register by value, and all others by const reference. This affects a few things you might take for granted in C++, like whether you can take a reference to a parameter.
The opening example is showing two samples of Carbon and the equivalent C++ code, noting that the "undecorated" parameter `p : Point` is equivalent to `const Point& p` (pass by const reference to a struct) and `x : i32` is equivalent to `std::int32_t x` (pass by value).
I think this boils down to: Carbon defaults to passing parameters that fit in a single register by value, and all others by const reference. This affects a few things you might take for granted in C++, like whether you can take a reference to a parameter.
The opening example is showing two samples of Carbon and the equivalent C++ code, noting that the "undecorated" parameter `p : Point` is equivalent to `const Point& p` (pass by const reference to a struct) and `x : i32` is equivalent to `std::int32_t x` (pass by value).
What's weird is that Point would fit in a register as well.
Carbon is what happens when you have a ton of experience programming in C++ and nothing else whatsoever. It is absolutely littered with joyful declarations of "hooray, we fixed this thing in C++", when in reality it absolutely bathed in the utter fictions of C++ and has no perspective on the entire universe of other things that we could base languages on.
I give it a -1 on innovation, it's so obviously stuck in a cul-de-sac in the design space that I see no hope for it. "We'll get around to memory safety eventually". Riiight.
That said, I'm glad they at least made the leap to, "Hey, we could actually use something other than C++?"
I give it a -1 on innovation, it's so obviously stuck in a cul-de-sac in the design space that I see no hope for it. "We'll get around to memory safety eventually". Riiight.
That said, I'm glad they at least made the leap to, "Hey, we could actually use something other than C++?"
Carbon being "absolutely bathed in the utter fictions of C++" is a feature not a bug.
The goal of Carbon is explicitly _not_ to be a new general purpose programming language. In the docs, the authors even advise people to use Rust instead for greenfield projects. The goal of Carbon is to support migrating existing C++ codebases to some new safer language.
The goal of Carbon is explicitly _not_ to be a new general purpose programming language. In the docs, the authors even advise people to use Rust instead for greenfield projects. The goal of Carbon is to support migrating existing C++ codebases to some new safer language.
I suppose that's what you end up with if your stated goal is to replace C++.
There already were several options instead of using C++, but some minds are wired in that way after many years of training.
There already were several options instead of using C++, but some minds are wired in that way after many years of training.
This is just so unfair to a project whose explicitly stated purpose is to be a better C++ and just that to ease the transition and porting of code from one to the other. Even they say, if you are not working with a C++ codebase, don't bother using Carbon, use something else. Great shot but make sure to aim at the target next time.
Unsafe languages are fossil fuels and Carbon is natural gas. Yeah, a small improvement over coal, but an incrementalist addition that only reduces the magnitude, not the direction. Still digging in the wrong direction, IMHO.
And I standby my original assessment that the design is very obviously lacking in long-term experience in another language.
And I standby my original assessment that the design is very obviously lacking in long-term experience in another language.
I wish it was D.
Spent a terrible amount of time hunting down C++ bottlenecks. It has almost never been about unintended copying of structs or classes.
It usually boils down to someone assuming that a particular collection or algorithm won't be on the critical path, and using a lazy O(N^2) solution. Then the codebase grows, use cases shift, someone puts another O(N^2) algorithm around an existing O(N^2) and the whole thing explodes.
Adding proper caching and switching to N*log(N) algorithms usually brings a DRAMATIC improvement (like 100x faster), while trying to squeeze out every unnecessary copy will only squeeze out about 10% of complexity.
It usually boils down to someone assuming that a particular collection or algorithm won't be on the critical path, and using a lazy O(N^2) solution. Then the codebase grows, use cases shift, someone puts another O(N^2) algorithm around an existing O(N^2) and the whole thing explodes.
Adding proper caching and switching to N*log(N) algorithms usually brings a DRAMATIC improvement (like 100x faster), while trying to squeeze out every unnecessary copy will only squeeze out about 10% of complexity.
To chime in with my personal experience, I did actually lose almost two days on hunting down an unintended copy constructor call.
The method expected a "const B&" but was called with a "const A&". It also happened to be called a lot. The actual type names were longer and very similar, and looking at the code it was hard to see they were different. Type B had a copy/conversion constructor from type A so every time the method was called all of the data contained in A would be cloned.
I was very relieved when I finally found the issue but also wished that C++ wouldn't call (possibly expensive) constructors so hiddenly, even going so far as to not only do that for value types but even for reference types.
Implicit type conversions are a hazard. Iirc the constructor can be marked explicit to make call sites more obviously expensive.
If you call a function with `f(large_struct, &large_struct)` and f() mutates through the second/pointer argument before reading the first/value argument, will its value change even though the function signature looks like a pass-by-value?
Too late to edit, but related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27089184, immutable pointer aliasing, https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/4021.
This is mostly a Google project?
Unclear from the repo who is sponsoring it.
Unclear from the repo who is sponsoring it.
Yeah. Basically think a C++ alternative by C++ developers who are dissatisfied with the standards committee.
Microsoft.
- don’t listen to me, it’s Google.
- don’t listen to me, it’s Google.
It's Google but yes, another instance of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
I hope this doesn't take off, with my sincere apologies to the ones who have been working hard on this. The last thing the C/C++ ecosystem needs is becoming de facto owned by a private company.
I hope this doesn't take off, with my sincere apologies to the ones who have been working hard on this. The last thing the C/C++ ecosystem needs is becoming de facto owned by a private company.
I doubt it'll make much headway, though I'll admit this is the direction they should've started Rust on. Imagine if all this post-C++ effort was put into just making a functional package manager that'd be an actual game changer imo.
Internally package management is not a problem at Google. It's the language itself.
In fairness this is as opposed to Go? Swift? Rust? Java? C#?
Then C and C++ are defacto controlled by private companies: Google+Apple do pretty much all the clang development, MS does MSVC - if they choose not to implement a feature that’s approved, or implement one that isn’t, that is the de facto standard.
You can argue it would require all three to agree on something, but that’s still essentially making WG21 somewhat irrelevant.
Then C and C++ are defacto controlled by private companies: Google+Apple do pretty much all the clang development, MS does MSVC - if they choose not to implement a feature that’s approved, or implement one that isn’t, that is the de facto standard.
You can argue it would require all three to agree on something, but that’s still essentially making WG21 somewhat irrelevant.
I prefer a fast evolution when necessary to a slow committee process. I don't see any drawbacks, unless your the type that prefers to build consensus before moving forward
I think most people feel today that, if anything, C++ is moving too fast (in terms of standards evolution), so I really don't see who wants an even faster changing C++.
It hasn't been an issue at all for Go. As long as all the source is public, I don't see an issue using a large, overvalued tech monopoly for advancing technology.
Sorry, not in the ecosystem (clearly).
Why not? Just curious.
Why not? Just curious.
No problem, here's some context, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
At some point between here and like, shipping a language design and working prototype, the stated intent is to build a Foundation like for several other modern projects and then assign everything to the Foundation.
""We are planning to create an open source foundation and transfer all Carbon-related rights to it; our goal is for the foundation setup to be similar to other open source projects, such as LLVM or Kubernetes.""
""We are planning to create an open source foundation and transfer all Carbon-related rights to it; our goal is for the foundation setup to be similar to other open source projects, such as LLVM or Kubernetes.""
Foundations don’t really mean much for open governance when you have a controlling stake in them.
> It has the usual cool features you expect from a modern language: useful generics
Are they trolling Go here?
Are they trolling Go here?
Rust seems to have failed to be a drop-in replacement for C++.
I realize this is unrelated to the blog post but it is related to Carbon…
If you are creating an off-ramp language from C++ wouldn’t you keep the syntax as close to C++ as possible? The syntax looks like it would be more familiar to a Rust developer than a C++ developer.
> Passing things by const T& is always good, right? After all, you’re avoiding a copy!
I find the tone strange. I understand that the author doesn't believe the statement. But I've never met anyone for whom performance matters and believes this. So, who's the audience here?
I find the tone strange. I understand that the author doesn't believe the statement. But I've never met anyone for whom performance matters and believes this. So, who's the audience here?
My one annoyance with Carbon’s promise is the lack of ABI stability; I know why they are doing that, and I know that C++ has the same downside, but as someone who binds C libraries constantly in other languages and finds the pain of C++ and now likely Carbon frustrating, it makes me a little sad to see the same mistake repeated.
A C++ replacement that is just as difficult to bind/link/work with in other languages as C++ itself just seems like a missed mark, despite the fact I know this is not on their priority list at all.
I hope my read of this is wrong, and it will be easy to bind and link to from other languages after all.
A C++ replacement that is just as difficult to bind/link/work with in other languages as C++ itself just seems like a missed mark, despite the fact I know this is not on their priority list at all.
I hope my read of this is wrong, and it will be easy to bind and link to from other languages after all.
It's pretty much the reason for it to exist I think. C++ has painted itself into a corner wrt ABI, leaving space for a faster language to replace it.
If this is the most exciting feature - Carbon is not that much exciting at all!
Language ecosystems for general purpose programming languages takes a long time to grow. We all know this. And yet here we are making college plans in the birthing room.
I searched on several sites to find out what their memory management strategy is but couldn’t figure it out. GC? ARC? Whatever Rust does? Would love to see where this fits. Exciting to see a neat new language though! Also my second favourite feature of rust and swift is Enums with associated values, I can’t see any info on this but I saw a blog mention they have it.
I think it's manual memory management, but with effort made to make that easier to handle and easier for tooling to check. With a plan to have a memory safe subset at some time in the future but not as part of the 0.1 designs.
> I searched on several sites to find out what their memory management strategy is but couldn’t figure it out.
Carbon might be shy about its footprint.
Carbon might be shy about its footprint.
Scope-bound resource management, like C++.
GC and ARC are for people that need shared ownership, which is pretty much always a bad idea.
GC and ARC are for people that need shared ownership, which is pretty much always a bad idea.
So how do you implement multithreading if the above are a bad idea?
The thread lifetime is also scope-bound, to ensure the thread dies before any object it might be referring to does.
Sorry, I meant how to guard against race conditions where multiple threads try to write to the same shared memory?
This is clasically done via memory synchronization mechanisms/atomics.
This is clasically done via memory synchronization mechanisms/atomics.
I don't understand how this has anything to do with lifetime management, which is what GC/RC/ARC are for.
You do need to synchronize concurrent access to the same object, and it's not just concurrent writes, it's concurrent accesses if at least one of them is a write.
You do need to synchronize concurrent access to the same object, and it's not just concurrent writes, it's concurrent accesses if at least one of them is a write.
Deep copy on passing between threads. Interesting pros and cons to the performance of that vs sharing pointers.
There is no need to copy objects for multiple threads to refer to them.
It's just that there is a single owner, and the other threads have a non-owning view only.
You need strict control on the thread lifetime, which is enforced through the same single ownership system, in order to enforce this.
It's just that there is a single owner, and the other threads have a non-owning view only.
You need strict control on the thread lifetime, which is enforced through the same single ownership system, in order to enforce this.
It's a bit early in its lifecycle to get too excited for features which already exist in other languages. Carbon is exciting because of C++ interoperability, but I already get this behavior today in Ada.
I can't get a pointer type (access) out of the parameter to the function, since the accessibility rules prevent it:
type Point is record
x, y, z : Interfaces.Integer_64;
end record;
procedure Print(p : Point);
I can't get a pointer type (access) out of the parameter to the function, since the accessibility rules prevent it:
-- "constant" since we don't know if it is writable
type Point_Access is access constant Point;
Last_Printed : Point_Access := null;
procedure Print(P : Point) is
begin
-- P'Access is sort of like C++ std::addressof(P) to get a "pointer"
-- There's also P'Address to get the actual address, but then requires conversion to a pointer-like "access" type to be used.
--
-- Compiler Error: "non-local pointer cannot point to local object" since Point_Access type is declared at a higher level
Last_Printed := P'Access;
-- If we really, really, want to do it, "I'm smarter than the compiler", you can force it...
-- Think of "Unrestricted" and "Unchecked" as grep-able warnings signs of "this is potentially very dangerous"
Last_Access := P'Unrestricted_Access;
-- ...
end Last_Printed;
procedure Print (P : Point) is
type Local_Access is access constant Point;
-- Compiler Error: prefix of "Access" attribute must be aliased
Ptr_Like : Local_Access := P'Access;
-- Similar, "I am smarter than compiler" trick works here too...
Ptr_Like : Local_Access := P'Unrestricted_Access;
type Point_Access is access constant Point;
Last_Printed : Point_Access := null;
-- Allow printing any pointer-like (access) to a point.
procedure Print (P : access constant Point) is
begin
-- Compile Error: implicit conversion of anonymous access parameter not allowed
Last_Printed := P;
-- If we really, really want to do this, we can force it with a cast...
Last_Printed := Point_Access (P);
-- ...
end Print;I'm sure the name has been discussed endlessly already, but I was quite surprised to see a discussion of the exciting feature of a deprecated API! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API)
Dunno about the most exciting but the most irritating so far is seeing it up. Admittedly I didn't spent a lot of time trying(I didn't have all that much time today) but in the 40 minutes or so, I was unable to get it going. I'll go back to attempting tomorrow and make sense of the errors.
I mean there's not even a toolchain yet, it's just an interpreter to play with, and you can use it on godbolt.org
I'd only worry about compiling it yourself if you intend to participate in Carbon's development in the near future.
I'd only worry about compiling it yourself if you intend to participate in Carbon's development in the near future.
Advantage #3 is false.
C++ already does this.
The standard explicitly states that a parameter taken by value and initialized from an prvalue of the same type may elide the move constructor (which all implementations do).
The standard explicitly states that a parameter taken by value and initialized from an prvalue of the same type may elide the move constructor (which all implementations do).
It's fair to say carbon shouldn't be the starter language that people should be learning
Calling convention? That's the most exciting feature? It doesn't boost productivity, reduce compile times, offer a larger standard library or create a boost a reasonable language would provide?
No thanks google. I've been saying that for years now. You jumped the shark
No thanks google. I've been saying that for years now. You jumped the shark
The author has expertise in C++ and is excited about a C++-like language that addresses the pain point of C++'s calling convention which will _never_ be fixed by the standards committee due to their commitment on backwards compatibility.
This was not an overview of the language, so this comment seems a little uncharitable to the author.
This was not an overview of the language, so this comment seems a little uncharitable to the author.
Having slightly better optimizations due to changing ABI doesn't sound worth the friction of having another language in the codebase. Especially when the guys who invented it (google) is famous for sunsetting things and couldn't get their peers to use bazel, the other thing google invented
I don't care if this sounds uncharitable, I see the pitfalls and I seen so many people get sucked in to prior pitfalls
I don't care if this sounds uncharitable, I see the pitfalls and I seen so many people get sucked in to prior pitfalls
I get the impression this guy just wanted something to blog about.
Is that not why everyone blogs?
Just like Java?
I'm sure the ship has sailed on Carbon's naming convention, but darn if that isn't a confusing article-title.
It is interesting to contemplate the most-ambiguous and least-comprehensible/googleable name one might be able to give to a piece of software. "the"? "Biden"? "Russia"? "water"? "air"? "dog"? "person"? "!"? "?"? " "?
It is interesting to contemplate the most-ambiguous and least-comprehensible/googleable name one might be able to give to a piece of software. "the"? "Biden"? "Russia"? "water"? "air"? "dog"? "person"? "!"? "?"? " "?
Google engineers: "Let's make our languages hard to Google!"
Google managers: "Whatever floats your boat. How about Go, Dart and Carbon?"
Google managers: "Whatever floats your boat. How about Go, Dart and Carbon?"
Swift was annoying in the early days since searches would bring up info on the international payment system.
Lua and PHP have nice searchability. At least, it's fairly easy to weed out results on the Portuguese moon and the Philippine peso.
Lua and PHP have nice searchability. At least, it's fairly easy to weed out results on the Portuguese moon and the Philippine peso.
I remember trying to Lycos/Altavista/Yahoo info on C or C++ back in the 90s. Perl also ended up being a challenge because a lot of results would be things like http://example.com/cgi-bin/perl/irrelevant-result.
I've been a Dart developer for three years and had zero issues finding anything Dart related.
I also had to write some Go, that was actually pretty bad in terms of searchability.
I also had to write some Go, that was actually pretty bad in terms of searchability.
For me it has helped to write it as "golang"; usually Google seems to understand what I want and show me relevant results.
Now, but in the early days a Dart search was likely to bring up info about the Irish transportation system
https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-serv...
https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-serv...
Is this really an issue? Humans are pretty good at understanding context. You have been lead to the lead-roof by the lead builder.
Aren't we just reinventing the wheel over and over at this point? Sure could us another Go, C wasn't doing functions well at all /s
An old Apple UI kit has an "exciting" feature?
It's about Carbon Language (from google) not the framework. https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang
Someone didn’t read the article :)
You shouldn't have to. The headline should tell you what it's about.