There's the small stuff like "class" is a keyword in C++ so not a valid variable name.
There's the fact that C has continued to evolve so there are new C features that haven't made it into C++ yet (VLAs).
There's stuff that has been implemented differently in both in mostly compatible but sometimes observably different ways (e.g. the types of character and boolean literals)
Thanks for the mention! I heard about Carbon years ago but I'm happy this time I could dig it further for insights now.
It's pretty fun to think about "Carbon to C++ is Kotlin to Java". One very important takeaway from all the discussions here is that, I cannot ship a language right to the target (small) community, as it's impossible to control how people decide to use this language. Which means, I have to focus much on how to improve the experience of application writing. Carbon would definitely be one of the inspiration.
Oh yeah, and I don't need to handle seemless integration with templates, I'm lucky.
Later down the page, Wolfram issues a challenge: "It’s been years now, and I’d really like to see SMP run again. So here’s a challenge. This is the source for a C program encrypted like the SMP source code..."
Just wanted to call this out in case anyone wanted to try decrypting it :).
That's actually correct at the time of this post :)
AU is an average distance from Earth to the Sun. Since Earth's orbit is elliptical, it will be closer than 1AU at certain times of year, and further than 1AU at other times in the year.
No, that's standard boilerplate these days in papers. You have to "sell" the science a bit to reviewers and connect your work to the broader picture. Those in the field usually ignore statements like this.
When I was a research assistant in college I was encouraged for one of my presentations to emphasize safe hydrogen storage as a vehicle fuel source, when really the research was all about how minuscule amounts of hydrogen change the electrical/optical properties of thin metallic films (and desorption was on the order of days). Selling it as a building block for safer hydrogen storage was necessary to get people engaged.
This paper is in Scientific Reports, which is published by Nature but is not regarded as a top-tier journal. It has an impact factor of 5.5 vs. 41 of Nature.
But I would say that "selling the science" occurs more often for high-profile journals because the authors need to convince the reviewers that the paper has a significant impact. Papers in more field-specific journals tend to write conservatively.
