On Thursday, 2 July 2020 at 10:21:19 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On Sunday, 28 June 2020 at 21:00:09 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar
wrote:
To be honest the analysis doesn't quite stack up. Because
compatibility is not the reason for the success of Go, or Rust.
I think that's a misinterpretation of what was said.
Compatibility is not a reason for success -- but the _absence_
of sufficient compatibility will always lead to failure.
So why was Java successful? It was not compatible with an
existing language.
Neither Rust nor Go are compatible with C++.
Rust, D and Go are all compatible with C in some sense.
Basically Herb is claiming to succeed a language must be able to
be a drop in replacement for C++ in a mix-match way. I think it
is a fallacy.
There is no single recipe that will make a language successful.
