Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it?

[Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> We don't. As with all old languages, it's political. We can't remove
> old features (as that would break existing programs),

But aren't the existing programs being compiled with compilers for the
appropriate (old) versions of the language?

How large is the actual benefit of maintaining practically full
backwards compatibility?

Isn't it more a matter of not being able to agree on what is important
to keep, and what isn't?

> I'd think it's getting close to time to start over with Ada, not
> because of any major problem, but simply the accumulation of
> cruft. The problem is that if you think its hard to convince people to
> use Ada with all of its track record, try doing that with a new
> language with no record. So I don't think there would be much of a
> market for that.

Isn't that in itself an argument for letting Ada 2020 be a major change,
where backwards compatibility isn't as important as using our current
knowledge to improve the language?  I wouldn't want an Ada 2012 program
to be accepted by an Ada 2020 compiler with a different meaning, but I
wouldn't mind it if the Ada 2020 compiler told me that I have to do
things differently in Ada 2020.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
"It is very easy to get ridiculously confused about the
 tenses of time travel, but most things can be resolved
 by a sufficiently large ego."