4 ms·
I don't believe that. I understand that some of the issue is lazy developers, but I really think that the majority of the problems would be caused by unmaintai
by Klathmon 11y ago
I don't believe that.
I understand that some of the issue is lazy developers, but I really think that the majority of the problems would be caused by unmaintained code.
Websites frequently sit around un-touched for years, hell our company website has some js code that was written by me over 4 years ago and hasn't been touched since because there's just no need to screw with it. And i'll be honest, it's not going to get updated until something breaks, and I would consider myself someone who likes to be on the cutting edge and is willing to endure breaking changes in more things than i should.
I really think that by advocating for a "good" subset of the language, we can get all of the benefits of removing old stuff with very little of the downsides. Something like "use strict"; in javascript now. It removed many terrible things from the language in a way that you could mix old and new code together and get the benefits of both.
That worked great, and i really think it could work great again. Something like a "use es6" or something that removes a massive set of "bad ideas" in the language, but it does it in a per-file or per-function basis. Allowing new code to be written in a better way, and allows old code to keep going as it was for a very long time.
- kurttheviking 11y agoAs someone who dealt extensively with piles of legacy Python 2.7 code, I can wholeheartedly agree with this. If the "forced" 2-3 change would have occurred right away, I am certain my employer (at the time) would have forked Python itself.