3 ms·
> Why remove a feature that could be useful? That makes no sense. It makes sense in the way that a language which is strongly biased to readability and consist
by jb1991 8y ago
> Why remove a feature that could be useful? That makes no sense.
It makes sense in the way that a language which is strongly biased to readability and consistent expectations makes sense. It is also how a language which minimizes programmer error makes sense.
For languages that refuse to remove anything, and thus suffer from unnecessary challenges, see C++.
- larschdk 8y agoSeveral things have been removed from C++, including auto_ptr, exception specifications, unary/binary_functions, trigraphs.
- jlebar 8y agoI think the extreme difficulty and indeed controversy that the committee stared down when removing trigraphs, which are a useless feature that the vast majority of C++ programmers will never once encounter, speaks well to GP's point that C++ is very conservative in how it removes features. Maybe not JS-level careful. But still.
- anyzen 8y agoOf course, JS has a problem in this regard that while it looks like a language, it is also a (de facto) assembler for the browsers. So disabling anything in JS will break lots of sites which will never be fixed. However as far as programming is concerned, many things have been deprecated through transpilers and linters (for example "==" throws a warning in ESlint).
- hellofunk 8y agoMost legacy cpp features and language semantics will never be removed, despite what many prominent voices in the community think.