> I believe it's called Rust :) Yes, but no. When people design a language which they know is going to be incompatible, they tend to go all the way with it. I

> I believe it's called Rust :) Yes, but no. When people design a language which they know is going to be incompatible, they tend to go all the way with it. If we're breaking it anyway then might as well do a better standard library interface than the stuff designed in the 90s and all that sort of thing, right? And that's good to have for new projects. But there is a benefit in having something which makes the smallest possible compatibility-breaking change to fix the defect in the original. So you have a "new language" with a borrow checker, but the standard library functions all have the same names and the same purpose and time complexity as the C and C++ ones, which would allow people to run the existing code through a transpiler which for 80% of the lines can be translated directly to working code in the new language, and produces diagnostic errors for the other 20% that explain what needs to be changed. Which removes 80% of the work from transitioning an existing codebase to the new language. And then more people do that.