Marco van de Voort wrote:
> On 2005-07-02, akarl <fusionfive@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>4. User base. There are still many times the number of users of Pascal
>>>than those languages.
>>
>>With this argument no new languages would ever be accepted.
>
>
> Well, that is actually the practice for more than a decade. Unless a
really
> large company like Sun or Microsoft does it.
>
The question is, why is it necessary to change languages every 5 to 10
years ?
I believe its all in the mind of the programer. Some believe a language is
only good if it is fresh and designed from scratch. I see beauty as a
language
that smoothly integrates both the past and the future. Saying that you can
only design a worthwhile langauge if you dump all of the old is to me a
immature
attitude. It says you are only willing to design on a sheet of paper
"untainted" by the past. And it clearly shows that language DESIGNERS are
not longtime language USERS, otherwise they would not be so quick to dump
all
their code into the trash can every 5 years.
So you can see this as stubborn users. I see it as stubborn language
designers
who can't deal with reality the way it is.
Archtects, notably, do not work this way. When presented with the idea of
designing a new building that fits into the look of the surrounding, older
buildings, but still expresses modern advances, most consider that a
challenge, not a burden.
|
