Re: candidate of add. language in src (not rust)

Monday, September 22, 2025, 1:50:48 AM, you wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 13:59:53 +0300
> Anthony Pankov <anthony.pankov@yahoo.com> wrote:

> What's wanted (for me) to judge it is "is it standardized by ISO /
> IEC?".
> Means, adding something is OK (but not assured to be standardized on
> next updates of the standard), but deletion and / or backwaed
> incompatible modifications are clearly "prohibited", at worst, strongly
> discouraged, not to force rewriting good enough codes in the future.

> This (hopefully) would mean it's safe to code something important with
> the language using only standardized (and marked as mandatory) features
> only.

That is the question. 

When I talk to students about IPv4 TCP/IP stack I say, "These are simple, clear subsystems. And if you've forgotten something, you can figure it out yourself using logic." But I don't know what to tell them about IPv6. When I read IPv6 related RFC I see that somebody want to solve specific thing somehow and put a solution as a standard. I remember Python 2.7->3.0 tragedy cutting many projects that lack manpower to rewrite code.
I see something like OAuth so bloating and complex that I feel it there only to raise a barrier of required man-hours for realization. I do not recognize C++ which was clearly understandable when I learn it via Gradi Booch and Straustrup book's. There is a Linux also that makes de facto and formal standards by itself...

So, that is the question.


-- 
Best regards,
Anthony