What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Bytes #110’s “C++ kind of sucks, actually” is a provocative headline, not a quote from Chandler Carruth or a measured verdict on the language. The July 25, 2022 issue argues that C++ faces difficulty evolving while preserving compatibility with a vast base of existing low-level software. It presents Carbon as an experimental successor-language approach aimed at making a different path possible without giving up C++ interoperability. Carbon’s stated benefits are goals, not established results, and the project says it is not ready for production use.
What the headline means
The title of Bytes issue #110 is deliberately sharper than the statement it discusses. The newsletter says Carruth did not put it quite that way. It attributes to him the view that C++ was “falling short” of its stated goals, including language evolution and code that is easier to write and understand. The phrase “C++ kind of sucks” is the newsletter’s gloss on that argument, not Carruth’s direct quotation or a conclusion supported by a comparative study. Read Bytes #110.
The critique is about the constraints on improving a mature language: decades of technical debt and the need to protect compatibility with a large body of existing low-level software. Those obligations can make change difficult. The issue does not establish that C++ is universally poor, nor does it provide benchmarks or a systematic evaluation of the language.
Why the issue brings up Carbon
Bytes presents Carbon as an experimental “successor language” idea, rather than a new version of C++. Its premise is to make room for a language that can evolve differently while retaining interoperability and migration options for C++ code.
#1 Best Overall
The issue lists performance matching C++, simpler grammar and keywords, and bidirectional interoperability among Carbon’s intended benefits. These are project aims, not demonstrated performance measurements or proof that migration is easy. Carbon’s official repository describes the project as experimental and says it is not ready for use.
Carbon’s status matters more than the pitch
Carbon’s own FAQ puts the distinction plainly: “The Carbon Language is an experimental successor to C++” and “Carbon is still an experiment.” The project says significant open questions remain. Even if the experiment succeeds, serious or production use is unlikely in the next few years, according to the official FAQ. That makes Carbon an option to watch, not a ready replacement for an existing C++ codebase.
For a team considering a language choice, the issue alone cannot establish which language is best. A useful evaluation would need to consider the current C++ code and migration needs, the maturity of interoperability and tooling, safety requirements, ecosystem support, and independent performance evidence. Bytes #110 supplies no comparative benchmarks or basis for declaring a winner among C++, Carbon, or the other languages it mentions.
Quick Recap
Best Value
What else was in Bytes #110
The issue was a broader developer newsletter, not a C++-only publication. Its opening also mentions Google succession plans, Bun tattoos, and the author’s virtual wolfpack chatroom. Other sections cover Radix UI v1, a JavaScript this bug exercise sponsored by Appwrite, a Phantom frontend engineering job listing, and a collection of developer links. These topics are separate from the C++ and Carbon discussion.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
