Oh, another thing. There is nothing about Val that places it as a successor of C++ in any way. A C++ successor language starts by supporting interoperability with C++, at the source level. It didn't even attempt to do this.

This just looks like someone who likes Val wants it to be considered as a successor to the language, and not be overshadowed by CPP2 and Carbon.

My absolute favorite part of the article, which I'm going to steal in the future, is the disclaimer that translates any future failure of Val to a success: "if Val dies as a programming language but all its ideas are incorporated in C++, then I will be delighted."

pahleeze

Why would a proposed successor language require compatibility with c++ source? Logically a successor is one in which you write future projects in not one which all existing code must compile now else you'd be stuck with the same tech in 2100 as 1980.

I don't think your last paragraph is a fair criticism. That's more or less how PL research is conducted.A feature of a PL is successful if it escapes the lab, not if the research language it was implemented in gets popular in industry. The latter is quite rare while the former just takes a long time, which is why industry lags academia so much.

You explicitly don’t need direct source level interoperability with C++. The language just has to become the primary choice in the domains C++ used to be one. Rust appears to fit this definition quite well.