Pointless experiment about cppfront HOT 6 CLOSED

Microsoft should simply hire Sean Baxter and get this project done.

I wish this cppfront all the success in the world, but so far it's looking like an open-source mosh pit to me.

from cppfront.

Seems like a good issue to keep open. If it's pinned, there will be less duplicates. It also serves as a justification for closing duplicates.

As a reminder, there's an "Unsubscribe" button for this issue:

from cppfront.

Experimenting is completely fine, I'm rather concerned about the non-free license

from cppfront.

Well, don't let that discussion get buried in this issue. Open it's own well-deserved one.

from cppfront.

The updated issue templates are a good barrier.

from cppfront.

Not to herb... Why I am not surprised...

Given the lack of quality of the "reported issue", I am not surprised.

Because comparing Rust with a new syntax for C++ and concluding that one is like the other but worse ("does everything and more than cppfront2 is trying to poorly mimic") is not even missing the point of compatibility, is being dishonest about the whole conversation about it. If you don't care about compatibility at all, and you think a clean break is good for you, great, go do that. But this code is about improving C++, not abandoning it.

from cppfront.