6 ms·

Aarrggghhh. Why do we insist that projects/systems/languages must be continually changing and evolving? Shouldn't there be room for a system that just does the

Aarrggghhh. Why do we insist that projects/systems/languages must be continually changing and evolving? Shouldn't there be room for a system that just does the thing(s) is does well? Why do we need to be continually tweaking? Adding increasingly obscure "features" and new bugs? Unlike a human language, a computer language isn't "dead" when it stops changing. It is dead when nobody is using it. These are very different criteria.

continuational 2y ago
Agreed - languages that keep on changing result in a lot of churn in the ecosystem, as older libraries quickly feel dated when they do things "the old way". New features often interact poorly with some of the existing features, as those features weren't designed with the new feature in mind.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Be careful with what you wish for. One such niche is COBOL development. COBOL hasn’t changed much and it’s anything but dead in the sense of not being used, but there are not few developers who wish it were.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
MaxBarraclough 2y ago
> Unlike a human language, a computer language isn't "dead" when it stops changing. It is dead when nobody is using it. These are very different criteria. A human language is considered dead if it no longer has any first-language speakers, but does have second-language speakers or is used fluently in written form, such as Latin. [0] I broadly agree with your point though. Many languages would do well to slow their rate of change. There are very few slow-changing languages, like C, Forth, and Scheme. This 4 year old comment of mine on this topic is still applicable. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_language [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21950875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21950875
- drpixie 2y ago
  You're right of course. I was thinking that human languages change naturally while in use.
wffurr 2y ago
The existing ones are all deficient in rather serious ways, hence lots of interest in new techniques.
- drpixie 2y ago
  >> The existing ones are all deficient in rather serious ways But most of the new ones look and behave just like the old ones - but with slightly more awkward syntax to allow for some special "feature" dear to the authors ;) I routinely check out the various new languages mentioned on HN and Lobsters. While plenty of languages are new to me, I'm yet to see any feature that is new to me :( I appreciate the work that goes into any language, but the stream of "new" languages feels like a stream of tweaks and rearrangement. It's disappointing. Most new languages come across as "like language X but with feature Y". Reminds me of all those "Airbnb for X" proposals from a few years ago:)

continuational 2y ago

Agreed - languages that keep on changing result in a lot of churn in the ecosystem, as older libraries quickly feel dated when they do things "the old way". New features often interact poorly with some of the existing features, as those features weren't designed with the new feature in mind.

rbanffy 2y ago
Be careful with what you wish for. One such niche is COBOL development. COBOL hasn’t changed much and it’s anything but dead in the sense of not being used, but there are not few developers who wish it were.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

MaxBarraclough 2y ago

> Unlike a human language, a computer language isn't "dead" when it stops changing. It is dead when nobody is using it. These are very different criteria. A human language is considered dead if it no longer has any first-language speakers, but does have second-language speakers or is used fluently in written form, such as Latin. [0] I broadly agree with your point though. Many languages would do well to slow their rate of change. There are very few slow-changing languages, like C, Forth, and Scheme. This 4 year old comment of mine on this topic is still applicable. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_language [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21950875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21950875

drpixie 2y ago
You're right of course. I was thinking that human languages change naturally while in use.

wffurr 2y ago

The existing ones are all deficient in rather serious ways, hence lots of interest in new techniques.

drpixie 2y ago
>> The existing ones are all deficient in rather serious ways But most of the new ones look and behave just like the old ones - but with slightly more awkward syntax to allow for some special "feature" dear to the authors ;) I routinely check out the various new languages mentioned on HN and Lobsters. While plenty of languages are new to me, I'm yet to see any feature that is new to me :( I appreciate the work that goes into any language, but the stream of "new" languages feels like a stream of tweaks and rearrangement. It's disappointing. Most new languages come across as "like language X but with feature Y". Reminds me of all those "Airbnb for X" proposals from a few years ago:)