4 ms·

A brand new language without backward compatibility would be nice. C+++

• wyldfire 7y ago
  Rust and D are pretty close to just that IMO. BTW the new language standards do make backwards incompatible changes. C++17, for example, deletes several features which were deprecated. And [1] is an egregious example. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/a/620402/489590 https://stackoverflow.com/a/620402/489590
• ThePadawan 7y ago
  Just in case you didn't know, the "adding +" part of your idea is what inspired the naming of C#. If you look at the #, it is supposed to represent two columns of two + each.
  • ziotom78 7y ago
    Nice! I never thought about this. I believed part of the reason they chose "C#" is because of musical terminology: "C#" means C-sharp, which is on a higher pitch than a plain "C".
    • gpderetta 7y ago
      You are correct I think, but the play on double plus was also considered.
• de_watcher 7y ago
  The whole point is to have backwards compatibility. It's just fascinating how they add or fix things without breaking the code. Doing without backwards compatibility is easy: take Rust or D.
  • Crinus 7y ago
    > It's just fascinating how they add or fix things without breaking the code. In the same way it is fascinating to watch a forest fire from afar.
    • de_watcher 7y ago
      This hostility is tiring. The ability to avoid rewriting is a practical thing.