3 ms·
It seems like a catch 22 for language developers if you want to maintain backwards compatibility. Either you freeze the language and let it stagnate or you kee
by tybit 7y ago
It seems like a catch 22 for language developers if you want to maintain backwards compatibility.
Either you freeze the language and let it stagnate or you keep adding features without removing them and suffer from bloat.
Seems like the slow churn of high level languages is inevitable while maintaining backwards compatibility.
- reallydontask 7y agoSome of the syntatic sugar will work in older versions as long as you've got a new version of Visual Studio, which was quite surprising to me when I realized. The problem is that sometimes it's hard to work out what is syntatic sugar and what isn't.
- quantified 7y agoA long-lived code base will end up containing different conventions for doing things based on the era the code was written in. I’m OK with that, the later code will (should) have, per screenful, higher clarity, more functionality and fewer bugs. I feel like there’s probably a good analogy with evolution of human languages and cultures around them. How many of us can read Beowulf in the original?