Pros:
- Transpiling to C++ means it will work wherever C++ works. On any toolchain. With relatively little effort. It shouldn't be hard to add CMake and bazel support, for instance. Even mostly dumb makefiles should be workable.
- Approaching the community this way could avoid fracturing the community more than it already is.
- Targeting specific success metrics (like CVE causes) could provide focus around design and requirements
- Seems simpler and easier to learn and teach.
Cons:
- The pitch assumes C++ modules are implemented, ready to use, and reasonable accessible.
- There will be a lot of tooling to reinvent: static analyzers, syntax highlighters, etc.
- At least for a while, debugging cpp2 problems will involve juggling multiple parallel realities: cpp2 code, C++ code, and actual program behavior (i.e. compiled binaries).
- Doesn't address other major C++ ecosystem problems like build times, packaging, build systems, etc. cpp2 could make them slightly worse.
- Transpiling to C++ means it will work wherever C++ works. On any toolchain. With relatively little effort. It shouldn't be hard to add CMake and bazel support, for instance. Even mostly dumb makefiles should be workable.
- Approaching the community this way could avoid fracturing the community more than it already is.
- Targeting specific success metrics (like CVE causes) could provide focus around design and requirements
- Seems simpler and easier to learn and teach.
Cons:
- The pitch assumes C++ modules are implemented, ready to use, and reasonable accessible.
- There will be a lot of tooling to reinvent: static analyzers, syntax highlighters, etc.
- At least for a while, debugging cpp2 problems will involve juggling multiple parallel realities: cpp2 code, C++ code, and actual program behavior (i.e. compiled binaries).
- Doesn't address other major C++ ecosystem problems like build times, packaging, build systems, etc. cpp2 could make them slightly worse.