From what I gather, the projects have quite different goals.

CppFront:

> My specific goal is to explore the question: Can we make C++ 10x safer, simpler, and more toolable if C++ had an alternative "syntax #2," within which we could be completely free to improve semantics by applying 30 years' worth of C++ language experience without any backward source compatibility constraints?

SPECS:

> We propose an alternative text-based syntactic binding (called SPECS) for the existing semantics of the C++ language.

So while SPECS is semantically equivalent to C++ as it is today, CppFront isn't bound by that constraint.

Sutter makes this very clear later in the README:

> Important disclaimer: This isn't about 'just a pretty syntax,' it's about fixing semantics.

Just to be clear, my intent isn't to diminish Conway's work in any way. Both are interesting projects, just with different goals.

> So while SPECS is semantically equivalent to C++ as it is today, CppFront isn't bound by that constraint.

This can be actually seen as cppfront having less chance than SPECS.

CppFront is supposed to be 100% link-compatible with the existing C++ ABI. Even if that isn't "semantically equivalent" in a strict sense, it's so close that it makes no real difference.

Perhaps. But Sutter sits on the committee, and therefore has more ability to get these things into the standard.