3 ms·

"A language that doesn't change is probably either dead, dying, or headed for a tiny niche" Or complete. Eternal change is not a value in itself.

• mkl 4y ago
  Right, but I think any language that is "complete" is either dead, dying, or headed for a tiny niche (or already in a tiny niche). Can you think of any counterexamples?
  • roenxi 4y ago
    The vast majority of languages are dead, dying or headed for a tiny niche. How many languages can you name that aren't? There can only be at most 3 languages with more than 25% market share. Even Python is likely to die; in time. Most things do. Something will have to change first, at the moment it is doing great.
    • mkl 4y ago
      You seem to be arguing against something I didn't say. All I'm saying is that change is a sign of life, and that non-change is a sign of the opposite.
      • roenxi 4y ago
        Go ye unto your tool shed, examine your spanner for signs of life, and you will have the possibility of gaining enlightenment - for you are correct in your argument.
  • anon___ 4y ago
    C.
    • mkl 4y ago
      C is changing (C99, C11, C17, C2x). It is also increasingly relegated to niches like embedded and systems, though there's still a lot of other use.
      • fsloth 4y ago
        Web development as well, as it turns out (compile to wasm).
• dwaltrip 4y ago
  Nothing is ever truly complete. Especially mediums of communication and construction, such as a programming language.