4 ms·
I'd say a good start would be: 1. Less syntax, so that later language features don't cause upgrade problems and can more easily be worked around rather than ca
by zedshaw 16y ago
I'd say a good start would be:
1. Less syntax, so that later language features don't cause upgrade problems and can more easily be worked around rather than causing syntax errors.
2. Awesome package management with everything not core in packages that work with the distros so they don't mind using them.
Both of those are damn hard to do though. Less syntax makes the language fairly unusable (Forth), and package management is just a nightmare in general.
- metamemetics 16y agoI think dialects are tough to predict emergent behavior that will inevitably happen if a language becomes old enough. They just want to happen. If your language assumes this and supports version-dialect from the start it will be more robust and age gracefully in the long run. edit: basically it would require too much work or a stroke of pure genius to ensure perfect syntax for a new language in public release 1. Language designers should assume as project age approaches infinity the probability of a syntax revision approaches 1. edit2: also if the interpreter host could interpret all the older versions up to the latest by default, you could write your code in both 2.7 and 3.1 and use 2.5 libraries with it etc. No need to rewrite every single older library for trivial changes.