3 ms·
One thing that comes to mind is that a language that prioritizes pedagogy would probably have a vastly different perspective on backward compatibility. And hist
by acjohnson55 10y ago
One thing that comes to mind is that a language that prioritizes pedagogy would probably have a vastly different perspective on backward compatibility. And historically, that's a huge constraint on how "real-world" PLs can evolve in practice. Every language I've spent any amount of time with is either deeply encumbered by suboptimal design decisions on the past or has experienced extremely painful version transitions. A language whose first priority is pedagogy can presumably evolve much more freely. I don't know enough about Pyrets to say whether that is the case here.
- skrishnamurthi 10y agoNot enough upvotes for this. And yes, Pyret is free to break things and move on when we figure out better ways of doing things. We've done that a few times already.