Martin Schreiber wrote:
Am 01.03.2013 07:56, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
Am 2013-03-01 04:41, schrieb dmitry boyarintsev:
All the new "strange" features doesn't really matter as long as:
1) the backward compatibility is in place (and or guidelines are given
how to make the code compatible with minimal efforts)
2) executable size doesn't suffer much ;)
3) the new target is supported and the existing code can be applied to
it.
The problem with this is that you cannot read code written by others
anymore
unless you learn *all* details about the large number of added
"features".
And that's meanwhile like learning 2-3 other languagues and no longer
the easy to learn Pascal of earlier times.
Agreed 100%. I think this is a very important argument against to add
not necessary extensions to the language.
I would try to unify existing features and make them "orthogonal"
instead and move advanced tasks into libraries.
I don't think that's possible in the general case, unless the parser
etc. are completely rewritten to allow things like the <generic> or
(tuple) notations to be defined in the same way that operator overloads
are today. And in any event, there might be so much overhead stuffed
into e.g. stackframe handling to support features that the compiler
doesn't know aren't being used "nearby" that performance and
maintainability both suffer.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
