Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[eao197]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:44:25 +0400, 0ffh <spam at frankhirsch.net> wrote:

> eao197 wrote:
>> I mean changes in languages which break compatibility with previous  
>> code. AFAIK, successful languages always had some periods (usually 2-3  
>> years, sometimes more) when there were no additions to language and new  
>> major version didn't break existing code (for example: Java, C#, Ruby,  
>> Python, even C++ sometimes).
>
> I rather think, that a "new major version" of any language that "doesn't
> break existing code" could hardly justify it's new major version number.
> A complete rewrite of the compiler, e.g., would justify a majer new
> compiler version, but not even a teeny-minor new language version.

Java 1.5 (with generics) and C# 2.0 ware major versions, but didn't break  
old code.

>
> An D /does have/ a stable language version, D1.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302  -- very strange bag for  
_stable_ version.

Try to imagine _stable_ Eiffel with broken DesignByContract support :-/

-- 
Regards,
Yauheni Akhotnikau