3 ms·
> New languages get to distill what works, and incorporate the lessons into their design directly In principle. In practice, most new languages distill _some_
by einpoklum 3y ago
> New languages get to distill what works, and incorporate the lessons into their design directly
In principle. In practice, most new languages distill _some_ of what works and incorporate _some_ lessons. Which is ok, but the point is that when they hit those situations where things _don't_ work, they either ignore it or start becoming more complex themselves.
> but becomes superlinearly[1] expensive and slow
Are you talking about the language standard? The standard library API? Idiomatic use "cognitive load"? Advanced use brain load?
For some of these, your statement is not true. Especially for the idiomatic use of the language: Quite a few things have gotten simpler, rather than more complex, for the lay user, with the addition of more functionality into the language.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago>> but becomes superlinearly[1] expensive and slow > Are you talking about the language standard? (...) I'm talking about effort to incorporate new lessons into language standard, and/or standard library, and/or compilers, while trying to maintain some backwards compatibility with at least few earlier "versions", and generally not reinvent half the language. This means you can't just add or modify a thing - you'll need to do some serious research, discuss things with compiler vendors and interest groups, etc. And you usually can't implement the new idea directly in the most clean/obvious way - you need to find a way that doesn't interfere with any of the existing rules of the language and surrounding customs.