> You misunderstood my first comment. I meant new C-like-in-syntax have nothing revolutionary semantically across the board.
Are you saying that the new features in Swift/Rust/C#/etc. aren't revolutionary? Or that they're not "across the board"? Or that they're not semantic? Which part do you disagree with?
> This is a double blow as each new C-like syntax ... contributes nothing semantically new.
This is demonstrably false. Do you mean that you don't think the new semantics are revolutionary enough? Or "across the board" enough?
Either way I have to disagree with you. Automated memory management is a semantic game changer, and applies nearly everywhere. Same goes for type inference, and optionals. ADTs are huge too. If your argument is that these are not important semantic improvements over C, then IMO you could not be more wrong.
Ah! That wasn't clear to me from your wording. I think I was especially confused because that means your argument seemingly boils down to "only the first language to have a feature is notable." (And I guess also that C-like languages are hard to learn?) But all languages stand on the soldiers of giants. I don't look down on Haskell simply because other languages had its features first.
Are you saying that the new features in Swift/Rust/C#/etc. aren't revolutionary? Or that they're not "across the board"? Or that they're not semantic? Which part do you disagree with?
> This is a double blow as each new C-like syntax ... contributes nothing semantically new.
This is demonstrably false. Do you mean that you don't think the new semantics are revolutionary enough? Or "across the board" enough?
Either way I have to disagree with you. Automated memory management is a semantic game changer, and applies nearly everywhere. Same goes for type inference, and optionals. ADTs are huge too. If your argument is that these are not important semantic improvements over C, then IMO you could not be more wrong.