[Info-vax] Clang

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/16/22 16:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/16/2022 9:13 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-11-16, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> wrote:
>>> Den 2022-11-16 kl. 03:51, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>>> On 11/15/2022 9:42 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> I'm curious.  While I don't know diddly about C++, I'm wondering about
>>>>> all the rather often upgrades to the standard.  Was it that bad to 
>>>>> begin
>>>>> with?  Does it really need such constant upgrades?
>>>>
>>>> It is common for actively maintained languages to get
>>>> new versions with new features every 12/24/36 months.
>>>>
>>>> To stay competitive C++ needs to evolve with the rest.
>>>
>>> Why does C++ (or C) need to "stay competitive"?
>>
>> There are some things that are a good idea to add, but don't forget that
>> one possible driver is that it's in the personal interests of the people
>> on the language committee to continue to "appear relevant". That means
>> there may be motivation to add features that might not be really 
>> required to
>> continue to show their current and future employers how "important" 
>> they are.
>>
>> The employers also have a vested interest in continuing to see updated
>> versions of the language standards so they can sell updated compilers.
>>
>>> If there are better tools to do the same job, why not use them instead?
>>
>> Sacrilege!!! You can't have that kind of reasonable talk around here. :-)
>>
>>> Is this some kind of competition between languages?
>>
>> Yes. Unfortunately. (And we all pay the price as a result. :-( )
> 
> There is a general line of thinking that more features are better.
> 
> So actively maintained languages tend to grow.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> I don't agree. I believe that simplicity is one of the
> most important aspects of a programming language.
> 
> I would divide enhancements in 3 categories:
> 
> A) huge changes that impact the nature of the language
>     like adding a new programming paradigm - given that
>     I believe history shows like 1/3 success, 1/3 maybe ok
>     and 1/3 failure, then I am skeptical about adding such
>     changes - if there is a need for the new features then
>     pick a newer language that supports them
> 
> B) smaller changes that are useful for the majority of users -
>     those actually makes sense to me because that is a healthy
>     evolution
> 
> C) smaller changes that are useful possible very useful for only
>     a small fraction of users while irrelevant for the majority
>     of users - those does not make sense to me as there are
>     so many potential features and adding them all will make the
>     language super bloated, the minority can use a library
>     function or see if they can find a language with their pet
>     feature
> 

Well put, Arne.  I agree completely.
Using my favorite language as an example, take a look
at COBOL.  The last big change included a change of
paradigm, OOP, and the addition of a few things to make
logic flow more effective and easier to understand, like
EVALUATE.

The first was ignored by practitioners of the art while
the second was put to good use.

Like too many of these changes it is  not the actual use
that drives change but something else.  In may cases, I
think ego.

bill