3 ms·

Every day I work with C++, and I've learned not to shoot myself in the foot. If it were the pinnacle of PL development, I would be depressed; there has to be a

Every day I work with C++, and I've learned not to shoot myself in the foot. If it were the pinnacle of PL development, I would be depressed; there has to be a successor at some point (Data point: who remembers Algol 68 or PL/1?). It would please me if something like Nim gained traction, because it's C++ _done cleanly_. I was just pointing out that adoption of new languages is very much "Crossing the Chasm" - after the enthusiastic early adopters, the gap until the mainstream starts listening. (I apologize for ruffling feathers, by the way; I suspect I have a nasty sense of humour.)

echu_marbdan 11y ago
C++ is obviously not the pinnacle of PL development, but real-world impact is something else entirely. Unfortunately, the data point doesn't mean much; we tend to, collectively, reach a platform that's "good enough" and then just stop looking. So just because Algol 68 is no longer used does not mean C++ will eventually go the same way; indications are that it's a "good enough" language that will continue to see massive use. More to the point, everything, or at least most things, written in C++ would have to be rewritten. This is enormous inertia compared to Algol 68. >I was just pointing out that adoption of new languages is very much "Crossing the Chasm" - after the enthusiastic early adopters, the gap until the mainstream starts listening. I don't get your point (not trying to be rude; I literally don't get how it ties in to your article).
jessaustin 11y ago
I apologize for ruffling feathers, by the way; I suspect I have a nasty sense of humour. Don't worry about it. The other definition of Flub I've seen [0], in Doug Hoyte's Let Over Lambda, comes from a similar place. [0] "A language that can only thread code by subroutines." [In this case, "thread" has an idiosyncratic meaning.] Basically, anything other than Forth. Or those Lisps with the right sort of macros to re-implement Forth.

echu_marbdan 11y ago

C++ is obviously not the pinnacle of PL development, but real-world impact is something else entirely. Unfortunately, the data point doesn't mean much; we tend to, collectively, reach a platform that's "good enough" and then just stop looking. So just because Algol 68 is no longer used does not mean C++ will eventually go the same way; indications are that it's a "good enough" language that will continue to see massive use. More to the point, everything, or at least most things, written in C++ would have to be rewritten. This is enormous inertia compared to Algol 68. >I was just pointing out that adoption of new languages is very much "Crossing the Chasm" - after the enthusiastic early adopters, the gap until the mainstream starts listening. I don't get your point (not trying to be rude; I literally don't get how it ties in to your article).

jessaustin 11y ago

I apologize for ruffling feathers, by the way; I suspect I have a nasty sense of humour. Don't worry about it. The other definition of Flub I've seen [0], in Doug Hoyte's Let Over Lambda, comes from a similar place. [0] "A language that can only thread code by subroutines." [In this case, "thread" has an idiosyncratic meaning.] Basically, anything other than Forth. Or those Lisps with the right sort of macros to re-implement Forth.