Re: Scripting language takes a silicon turn

[Jeff Sheets <jeff.sheets@...>]

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:06 +0200, Pavel Antokolsky aka Zigmar wrote:
> On 1/24/06, Boyko Bantchev <boykobb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Python changes over time, borrowing from Haskell, Icon etc.
> > So do C++, Java and Perl.  IMO, this shows that the design
> > of these languages suffers serious flaws.  For comparison,
> > C experienced almost no changes for some 35 years,
> > because for what it aimed at its design was excellent.  And
> > fortunately, C is not alone in this respect.
> I have to completely disagree with you. Language that changing (BTW
> Lua does it a lot) is language that live and evolving. The only
> languages that does not change - are "artificial" academic languages.
> They were designed from the beginning as prove of concept or tool for
> specific methodology, which "only right and true concept" in design.
> They aren't used in real life (as being generally unpractical) so they
> don't need to change and evolve.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Zigmar

Change for the sake of change isn't a good reason though. Change because
a new method is necessary, or faster, or more efficient, or desirable,
is good change. No change at all does not necessarily signify
stagnation. A lack of change may simply indicate that there is no need
for change. Or it could mean stagnation.

Change alone cannot be an indicator of a language's livelihood. Just as
"Artificial" academic languages have no practical purpose, a language
that "artificially" changes so much just so the buzzwords "new",
"improved", "innovative", "paradigm shift", etc. can be used to sell
more Business Managers on the language is just as damaging to Computer
Programming as stagnation is.
-- 


JJS
"If Ignorance is Bliss, I'll take the Pain."