[Info-vax] Rust as a HS language, was: Re: Quiet?

[Dave Froble]

On 4/4/2022 2:37 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 1:56 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-04-04, Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2022 8:28 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> 2) No official ISO or similar language standard I can rely on 5/10/20 years
>>>> from now when I need to work on my safety or general production critical
>>>> code at that point.
>>>>
>>>> Even though many of the Rust people appear not to understand this, the
>>>> lack of those guarantees is a _massive_ problem in the real world.
>>>
>>> Not really. Lot of popular languages are not formally standardized.
>>> Python and PHP are not standardized. C# is/was standardized but the
>>> standard is 6 versions behind. It took 13 years before C++ got
>>> standardized.
>>
>> You have just made my point for me Arne. Or to put it another way,
>> Python 2 to Python 3.
>>
>> Why wasn't Python 3 just another language mode in the existing compiler
>> instead of being a whole different compiler ?
>
> (ignoring that I would not call Python a compiler)
>
> The language has evolved. Most languages does.

There is "evolve", and there is "replace" ...

> They could have chosen to prioritize backwards compatibility higher.
> Let us call it "Java approach".

Or, the VMS approach.

> They could have introduced a compatibility mode. Let us call it
> "DEC C approach".
>
> But they did not.
>
> Would difference decisions have been made if it had been an ISO
> committee and not a BDFL?
>
> I don't know.

I'm pretty sure that a committee of people already using the product would not 
allow a break such Python 2 to Python 3.  That is the difference, and it is a 
major difference.

Much as it pains me, I have to state that Simon is "right on" with this discussion.

> If the same people were making the decision then they may likely have
> made the same decision. Whether they have a "core team" hat or an
> "ISO WG member" hat should not change their opinion.

Oh, but it does.  When the developers are determined to do as they please, and 
are not encumbered by users who might be affected, then you have the Python 
issue.  It can happen anywhere when there is not user input to decisions.

>> Why did Python 2.7 stay around for as long as it did ? How many are still
>> using it these days due to an existing code base ?
>
> That people have old code bases that they build with old compilers or
> run with old interpreters is not Python specific. Lots of companies
> are buried in technical debt.

Not "lots", but everyone.

So often I see programmer types quite ready to change things.  Those footing the 
bill may not be so eager.  In fact they are not.  For the programmers, it is job 
security, it is polishing their resume.  Not good for anyone but the 
programmers, and then they are not good for their employers.

Off with their heads I say ...

>> I can compile C89 code on a compiler 33 years later. When another standard
>> for C is released, it becomes just another language mode in the existing
>> compilers and all the existing C standards are still supported.
>
> That is a choice. They can change it if they want to.
>
>> How confident are you that I can compile C89 code in yet another 10 years ?
>
> Compatibility seems to be a priority so that seems extremely likely.
>
>> In comparison, how confident are you that I can compile existing Python 3
>> or Rust code in another 10 years ?
>
> Python - pretty sure. I believe the Python community learned the
> lesson. Nobody expects an incompatible Python 4.

"Faith".  Something not dependent on reality or facts.

> Rust - no idea. I don't follow the Rust community enough to know.
>
>> What's to stop the Rust people from having some great language revamp a
>> few years from now and then stop supporting the existing language variant ?
>
> Obviously nothing.

If the users had any input to such decisions, it would not happen.

> Same applies to all languages.
>
> You will have to evaluate. Do they claim they want to stay compatible?
> Do you have faith in them do as they say? What is the community opinion?
>
> I don't even know what the Rust people say about this.
>
> But if they don't prioritize compatibility and you do, then it is
> of course a reason to not pick rust.

And many other boondoggles ...


-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486