Carbon is not a programming language (sort of)

Re:Carbon is not a programming language (sort of) by piebro on Saturday February 08, 2025 @02:03PM (#42985290)

Thanks for the post, I enjoyed reading it.

There is a small typo in this sentence: "As long as we’re willing to say that Carbon is is about reducing the reliance on the C++ Standard Committee ...". There are two "is".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon is not a programming language (sort of) by PaulDavisThe1st on Saturday February 08, 2025 @02:34PM (#42985541)

It's a hangover from the ill-fated Clinton programming language, where you repeat an operator (such as "is") to ensure there is no ambiguity about what your intention is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon is not a programming language (sort of) by zelphirkalt on Saturday February 08, 2025 @04:05PM (#42986196)

Did you mean to write "there is is no ambiguity ..."?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon is not a programming language (sort of) by mattigames on Saturday February 08, 2025 @04:16PM (#42986278)

Too early for that pun, it works better at the end as a punchline of sorts, "ensure there is not ambiguity about what your intention is is."

[ Parent | on HN ]