> But Safe C++ and Circle are different languages, right?

Eh, bit of a mixed bag, I think, depending on the context in which the words are used. "Circle" can refer to the compiler/toolchain or the set of C++ extensions the compiler implements, whereas Safe C++ is either the proposal or the extensions the proposal describe. As a result, you can say that you can compile Safe C++ using Circle, and you can also describe Safe C++ as a subset of the Circle extensions. I wouldn't exactly describe the lines as well-defined, for what it's worth.

> There are presumably differences between them, and I do not know what those differences are, and I do not know if those differences were documented somewhere.

They're sort of documented indirectly, as far as I can tell. Compare the features in the Safe C++ proposal and the features described in the Circle readme [0]. That'll get you an approximation at least, albeit somewhat shaded by the old docs (understandable given the one-man show).

> I cannot find any occurrences of "reference implementation" in the Safe C++ draft.

The exact words "reference implementation" may not show up, but I think this bit qualifies (emphasis added):

> Everything in this proposal took about 18 months to design and implement in Circle.

[0]: https://github.com/seanbaxter/circle/blob/master/new-circle/...

▲

saghm 4 days ago | parent [-]

If they're the same language, then I think it's a fair objection that it's closed-source, as some people might find using a closed-source compiler to be unsuitable as a replacement for the existing open source C++ ones. If it's not the same language, then it's not clear that Safe C++ actually exists today, so it also seems fair that people might be interested in alternatives that they expect might be available sooner.

▲

aw1621107 4 days ago | parent [-]

I don't think the objection in the first sentence makes sense because I don't think replacing the existing C++ compilers was ever in the cards. If anything, the fact that the Safe C++ proposal has a section titled "Implementation Guidance" seems to point to precisely the opposite - that the intent was for existing C++ compilers to be updated to add the new features, not that Circle was to replace them.

I'm not sure about the second sentence either? Circle (supposedly?) implements everything in the Safe C++ proposal, so in that respect Safe C++ exists. Alternatively, you can say Safe C++ doesn't exist because major compilers don't implement it, but that's kind of the point of the Safe C++ proposal (and many (most?) other C++ language proposals, for that matter) - it's describing new features that don't currently exist but might be worth adding to the standard.

> people might be interested in alternatives that they expect might be available sooner.

This is also a bit funny because this was one of the more contentious points of debate in the Safe C++ vs. profiles discussion, and the impression I got is that between the two Safe C++ was generally considered to be closer to "might be available sooner" than profiles.

▲

saghm a day ago | parent [-]

It sounds like the difference of opinion here is around how soon we expect that the major compilers will actually implement the safe features. I tend not to be optimistic that these sorts of changes will be available anytime soon, and I think it would be fair to consider alternatives at this point, but that's obviously a judgment call and not everyone will agree on that.

	▲	aw1621107 a day ago \| parent [-]
		As far as Safe C++ vs. profiles specifically, I don't think the conversation really ever got to the point of serious discussions of how soon the features could be implemented. My understanding is that there were bigger hangups about what direction to go in the first place as well as what "profiles" even meant. > and I think it would be fair to consider alternatives at this point I would assume those who could consider alternatives already have, and that those (still) interested in safe(r) C++ do so because the alternatives are insufficient for one reason or another.