I don’t really understand the attraction of living standards for programming languages.
The good parts seem to be:
* Faster addition of features
* You can stop worrying about what language you are targeting, because it’s always head
The bad parts seem to be:
* Faster addition of features
* You can’t reliably and aggressively target a particular version of the language
* You can’t claim compatibility as it is a moving target.
In general, it seems like a good way to get cruft and the full benefits of CADT.
Looks kind of underwhelming to me. How often will the standard web developer extensively use exponentiation in a language with lackluster support for numeric computations to make adding ** worthwhile?
And the contains -> includes choice seems to be largely done by people who already ‘shined’ in the Promises/A+ spec. What a train-wreck.
I don’t really understand the attraction of living standards for programming languages.
The good parts seem to be: * Faster addition of features * You can stop worrying about what language you are targeting, because it’s always head
The bad parts seem to be: * Faster addition of features * You can’t reliably and aggressively target a particular version of the language * You can’t claim compatibility as it is a moving target.
In general, it seems like a good way to get cruft and the full benefits of CADT.
Looks kind of underwhelming to me. How often will the standard web developer extensively use exponentiation in a language with lackluster support for numeric computations to make adding
**worthwhile?And the
contains->includeschoice seems to be largely done by people who already ‘shined’ in the Promises/A+ spec. What a train-wreck.