Such a shame it isn't open source, so it's really impossible to eyeball QoI without actually investing a huge amount of time into the language. (Plus the usual bad things about closed source.)
I have no doubts about the qualifications (or even intentions) of the author, but one feels that a language meant for serious things should have an open implementation and/or standard. Of course, I realize this may not align with Baxter's goals, but it is going mean ~0 adoption.
There's too much pining for Rust syntax and non-conservative changes or additions that aren't consistent with the rest of C++ syntax.
It repeats C++'s mistake of having too many non-convergent features and adds as much new syntax on top as C++ already has. This is a problem because to be able to read code, you have to know all language features at least superficially.
Instead of doing what plain C++ has been trying to do and stabilize on a smaller feature set and (at least verbally) deprecate legacy cruft, this is going the exact opposite route.
From my point of view, Cpp2 gets sold this way, due to the conflict of interest that it is being proposed by the ISO C++ chair, and naturally the story can't be that it is yet another wannabe C++ replacement like all the other ones.
I have no doubts about the qualifications (or even intentions) of the author, but one feels that a language meant for serious things should have an open implementation and/or standard. Of course, I realize this may not align with Baxter's goals, but it is going mean ~0 adoption.