Hacker News Reader

Comment by steveklabnik | Hacker News Reader

Rust is certainly not the "end of history" for programming languages. But, taking on that task is for future generations of language devs; it's an open research question today. I can only hope so!

I wrote some thoughts about "complexity" and language design here: http://words.steveklabnik.com/the-language-strangeness-budge...

I also think the difference between incidental and inherent complexity is important...

View on HN

One question I had after reading your post is - We currently build languages with purely additive models, ie features can be added to a language over time. Overtime the interaction between features creates "incidental complexity". Was wondering if you know of any languages that have been able to drop old features / ideas in a controlled manner.

Lua has been known to remove things. The language still remains small and clean after over 20 years. The creator has given some talks about how breaking compatibility (e.g removing features) requires its own thought process. There are different types of changes. The easiest to change are the ones that can be detected immediately in existing real world programs whereas the hard changes are the kinds that could go silently undetected by users until it is too late.

Ruby 1.8 -> 1.9 was quite successful; it was painful at the time, but eventually worked out. Contrast with Python 2 -> 3 or Perl 5 -> 6.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com