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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 4/4/2022 9:29 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 2:46 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/4/2022 2:07 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> But other languages are also evolving over time, and they do it in
>>> a way that guarantees the next language variant is just another
>>> language mode in the existing compilers. That means I know I can still
>>> compile code written to that old language variant in the years to come.
>>
>> There are no such guarantee.
>>
>> There are plenty of examples of breaking changes.
> 
> There is also things such as Basic+, BP2, VAX Basic, DEC BASIC, Compaq 
> BASIC, HP BASIC, VSI BASIC that is probably 100% compatible.  We have 
> code originally implemented back in the 1970s, which will still compile 
> and run, correctly, today.  I will admit that the application has 
> changed over the years, and finding some of that old code might be a 
> task, but, it will still do what it was written to do.

Many languages prioritize compatibility.

> Can anything be more valuable than that?
> 
> Is that something to desire?

It is a very desirable thing.

Code should be enhanced and improved, but preferably to meet
increase business demand not to keep up with an ever changing
language standard.

>> Because even when prioritizing compatibility it is easy to make
>> something not compile - or worse compile with a different semantics.
>>
>> 18 years ago Java added an enum keyword. There were a surprisingly
>> amount of code using enum as a variable name.
>>
>>> If the Rust language isn't going through a formal language standards
>>> process, how do I know that I can compile existing Rust code in
>>> 5/10/20 years time ?
>>
>> Rust is almost certainly going through a formal process. All
>> major languages has to.
>>
>> Whether that process prioritize compatibility or not is up
>> the people involved in that process.
> 
> Not the users, huh?

They make the decisions. They may or may not be influenced by
the end users.

Arne