|
 |
Ger <No.### [at] Thank You> wrote:
> I guess you would call me one of "those people".
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a new language perse but I am against "a
> new language for the sake of a new language". If at the end of the
> discussion it turns out that the current SDL cannot be cleaned up/extended
> to do what we all want it to do, then off course we need a new language.
> But implementing a new language has major cons.
> 1) All current and older projects are useless because of loss of backwards
> compatibility.
> 2) We'll upset/drive away a good portion of the current userbase because of
> the new syntax.
>
> --
> Ger
That's not so obvious to me. AFAIK, compatibility problems already happened
in POV's life when the syntax evolved and new features were added. The
#version clause was added for that. If the new syntax inherits enough from
the current one, we can imagine either that the new is a subset of the old
and the new parser will understand old syntax, or converters can be
developped (which is not far from the first case). I can't imagine that the
new syntax makes less features than the old, so I dont't see why there would
be an impossibility.
However, the arrival of a new syntax is a major change, thus we can't hope
making a significant step without some eventual concessions.
Even if lots of nice stuff was produced with pov 3.6 & megapov 1.2.1 syntax,
it appears that many people feel limited and want something new. That's the
reason of this discussion and justifies we think seriously about it and try
to determine the WHAT, the WHY, and the HOW.
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
