On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 at 10:17:21 UTC, psychoticRabbit
wrote:
I believe the programming langauges of the future, and the ones
people should invest their time learning, are those that can be
best understood in the least amount of time.
Yes, I would say so, unless they bring something new to the table
like formal verification (proven correctness) or some kind of
expert system geared towards a set of common domains (e.g. data
flow).
This is because programs are getting larger and more complex,
and to understand them at all, they have to be simple to
understand.
Right, so which is an argument in favour of agent based systems.
Kind of the direction that has happened on the server side with
micro services.
C++ is not simple. It never has been. The so called
'modernisation' of it is not helping me to change my mind about
it ;-)
Right, because, even though C was simple, it isn't simple to
debug, so C++ has all that + a wide variety of overlapping
features. So C++ cannot become simple.
It's time to stop 'improving' C++ and redesign it from scratch
- or move to D.
Well, yes, but then D needs to make a case for itself and do a
reset so that the disadvantages in switching is offset by the
advantages. Either that or some other language will squeeze in,
which is ok too. I don't care who does it, could even be Rust if
they add some features, but it should happen. Right.
