"I will contend that conceptual integrity is the most important consideration in system design. It is better to have a system omit certain anomalous features and improvements, but to reflect one set of design ideas, than to have one that contains many good but independent and uncoordinated ideas."
No, a language can stay current by evolving to fit its purpose. A good example of this is Matlab. Matlab is older than C++ and is still heavily used today, enough that it's one of the few remaining programming languages to support an actual business.
Matlab is not the same language it was in the 70s. But the core language is still largely about manipulating arrays and it does it well. It has evolved by adding functionality through toolboxes and creating new, innovative developer tooling. But it hasn't jumped on every PL bandwagon that has driven by over the last 50 years.
Matlab is one of the top 20 programming languages in the world still after 60 years according to the TIOBE index [0]. It has maintained a large user-base and achieved profitability over this time, not by adopting every PL trend that has come and gone, but by adapting to new developments while staying focused on its essence as a language. It proves you can stay current without doing what C++ is doing.
Matlab's usage is down a bit since a peak at 2017, but over the last 20 years it's up over 300%, and it's done so by being a for-profit language. Mathworks is a billion dollar company, which is quite an achievement in the PL space in 2022.
Meanwhile C++ usage is up over the last couple years but the long term trend has been a steady decline over the last 20 years [1]. From 14% to a low of 4%, now back up to around 8%.
Citing TIOBE instantly demonstrates a fatally bankrupt argument: changes in TIOBE ratings have essentially nothing to do with actual usage, or with anything else quantifiable.
TIOBE is statistical noise. You would equally meaningfully cite your tea leaves, or crows flying overhead.
Okay, well then I suppose you have a better citation for your unsupported assertion that Matlab has been in decline for many years. I've backed up most of my assertions with citations, I think it's time you brought some sources to the discussion. What is your basis for anything that you've been saying here?
I mean, if TIOBE was really statistical noise as your claim, there wouldn't be clear trends in industry reflected in the data, like the rise of Python in the last few years. And yet we see it, so clearly it's measuring something.
That is code for "it is evolving and I cannot be bothered to keep up".
All languages that are actually useful evolve. They get features that other people need, and you don't, just yet. Some of those features do turn out not to be perfect, because they are made by humans.
Comparing an old language to a new language, the new language will have many fewer of those both because it leaves many old things behind, and because it gets benefit of hindsight for the rest. Give it time, and it will accumulate "incoherence" of its own; the faster it evolves, the faster that happens.
The alternative is for a language not to be used. Then, it can stay pristine and "coherent", and not useful.
> "it is evolving and I cannot be bothered to keep up"
No, I actually teach C++ and have been keeping up with it for decades. It was the second language I learned in 1994 and I still code in it professionally today.
> Give it time, and it will accumulate "incoherence" of its own; the faster it evolves, the faster that happens.
Like I pointed out with Matlab, it’s a much older language compared to c++ yet is mostly coherent, far more than c++. This has less to do about C++’s age and the March of time or the human condition. Otherwise more old languages would be as incoherent as c++ yet that’s not the case.
Please leave the personal attacks out of this, thanks. I've said nothing personally against you and yet you've turned to calling into question my profession rather than the points I've raised. I understand maybe it may feel like I'm attacking you personally as I'm criticizing a language which I gather you are very fond of, but criticizing C++ is not criticizing you, and I would appreciate if you show me the same respect I've shown you. That's not what this site is for, and if you want to engage in that kind of back and forth I'd kindly decline.
My students give me high marks, my department (which includes faculty who have contributed to C++ spec over the years) is satisfied with my teaching, and I graduate students that go on to work at top companies and research labs around the world. I'm doing my job just fine, let's stick to talking about C++.
