[nemetroid]

Sure, there might be other interop stories that are a better fit, and Dart is a pretty unflattering comparison (perhaps chosen intentionally). But within Herb's dichotomy, I think Carbon falls into the "Dart" category, since the "Typescript" category is rather narrow.

[chandlerc1024]

If you're going to create a dichotomy between two languages, I think we're dramatically closer to TypeScript.

The whole point of Carbon is to integrate into and re-use an existing ecosystem of software written in C++. It's as far from the Dart approach as it can get without literally being a TypeScript style approach.

Ultimately, this dichotomy doesn't help discuss Carbon. I think it is useful for looking at Rust (until/unless Crubit or something similar radically changes its interop story), Go, and many other languages. But not Carbon IMO. It loses all of the important nuance. And there are important and meaningful differences from TypeScript's approach that we've talked about since announcing Carbon, but they don't make it anything like Dart's strategy.

[jonex]

The dichotomy is relevant if you are of the opinion that some of the foundational design choices of Carbon makes it less viable as a C++ successor based on the similarity of those choices to other projects that were struggling due to this. The talk is arguing for the validity of the construct with various examples, not just Dart.

The construct can be useful without being the end-all answer to what should be done and I would definitely advice you to watch the full talk if you haven't yet. And the consider how each point may apply or not apply to Carbon. Don't just dismiss it on the notion that Carbon is different from Dart.

Actually, I'd encourage you to reach out to Herb Sutter and ideally meet up in person to discuss the matter. Your goals are aligned in many ways and while you have different approaches a lot of good can come out of sharing ideas.