• Elise@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a game dev updating my ancient backend knowledge I really was confused about this specific topic.

    And I feel the same way about the many new languages. Why not just upgrade the existing ones.

    • TheOneCurly@lemmy.theonecurly.page
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’ve ever followed the C++ committee discussions you’ll see they put a lot of time and effort into considering legacy code when introducing language changes. For better or worse existing languages are on a trajectory set from their inception that can’t always be easily redirected. New languages are free of this baggage and can wildly experiment.

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wish languages were more willing to release breaking versions, like a C++ v2 or such. That’s not to say languages don’t already have breaking changes between versions (Python comes to mind), but it would allow people to start fresh and clean up obsolete designs and libraries.

        • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know the cleaning up probably won’t happen. If some dependency doesn’t work anymore because Python introduced a breaking change, then you stick with the old Python version.

    • kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your last question is equivalent to : why there so many math theories? Can’t we just reuse the old ones?

      New language appear as a natural product from research in type theory for ex