Talk:Immutable Strings - Revision history

Paulb: Added comment

2007-04-25T18:48:40Z

Added comment

Peter gummer at 04:01, 19 April 2007

2007-04-19T04:01:57Z

Peter gummer at 04:00, 19 April 2007

2007-04-19T04:00:58Z

Colin-adams: Starting from scratch

2007-04-18T19:22:49Z

Starting from scratch

New page

== Starting from scratch ==

While it is very galling that C# and Java should be better than Eiffel in this respect, I am afraid that starting from scratch isn't really an option. Almost all programs would be broken, and the cost of fixing millions of lines of code would be far too high.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 25 April 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	--[[User:Peter gummer\|Peter gummer]] 06:00, 19 April 2007 (CEST) There may be a decent migration path that wouldn't break code. Consider the fact that Eiffel is about to embark on its ''Void-safety'' adventure: at first sight, this looks like the mother of all breaking changes, but they have a reasonable-looking plan that should avoid most of the pain. The case of mutable strings seems very similar: a common cause of runtime errors that can be fixed by reversing the current behaviour. I think it's worth considering. All of the other options, with the exploding number of variations of strings (don't forget UC_STRING, etc.) and their conversion routines look much more scary to me.		--[[User:Peter gummer\|Peter gummer]] 06:00, 19 April 2007 (CEST) There may be a decent migration path that wouldn't break code. Consider the fact that Eiffel is about to embark on its ''Void-safety'' adventure: at first sight, this looks like the mother of all breaking changes, but they have a reasonable-looking plan that should avoid most of the pain. The case of mutable strings seems very similar: a common cause of runtime errors that can be fixed by reversing the current behaviour. I think it's worth considering. All of the other options, with the exploding number of variations of strings (don't forget UC_STRING, etc.) and their conversion routines look much more scary to me.
		+
		+	--[[User:Paulb\|Paulb]] 20:48, 25 April 2007 (CEST) Starting from scratch is never an option, as Peter mentions there would actually be a migration path. We do our very best to not break code. In fact we still support every construct and keyword we've introduced in the language, even though they have been deprecated for years.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:01, 19 April 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	While it is very galling that C# and Java should be better than Eiffel in this respect, I am afraid that starting from scratch isn't really an option. Almost all programs would be broken, and the cost of fixing millions of lines of code would be far too high.		While it is very galling that C# and Java should be better than Eiffel in this respect, I am afraid that starting from scratch isn't really an option. Almost all programs would be broken, and the cost of fixing millions of lines of code would be far too high.

−	--[[User:Peter gummer\|Peter gummer]] 06:00, 19 April 2007 (CEST)There may be a decent migration path that wouldn't break code. Consider the fact that Eiffel is about to embark on its ''Void-safety'' adventure: at first sight, this looks the mother of all breaking changes, but they have a reasonable-looking plan that should avoid most of the pain. The case of mutable strings seems very similar: a common cause of runtime errors that can be fixed by reversing the current behaviour. I think it's worth considering. All of the other options, with the exploding number of variations of strings (don't forget UC_STRING, etc.) and their conversion routines look much more scary to me.	+	--[[User:Peter gummer\|Peter gummer]] 06:00, 19 April 2007 (CEST) There may be a decent migration path that wouldn't break code. Consider the fact that Eiffel is about to embark on its ''Void-safety'' adventure: at first sight, this looks like the mother of all breaking changes, but they have a reasonable-looking plan that should avoid most of the pain. The case of mutable strings seems very similar: a common cause of runtime errors that can be fixed by reversing the current behaviour. I think it's worth considering. All of the other options, with the exploding number of variations of strings (don't forget UC_STRING, etc.) and their conversion routines look much more scary to me.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:00, 19 April 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	While it is very galling that C# and Java should be better than Eiffel in this respect, I am afraid that starting from scratch isn't really an option. Almost all programs would be broken, and the cost of fixing millions of lines of code would be far too high.		While it is very galling that C# and Java should be better than Eiffel in this respect, I am afraid that starting from scratch isn't really an option. Almost all programs would be broken, and the cost of fixing millions of lines of code would be far too high.
		+
		+	--[[User:Peter gummer\|Peter gummer]] 06:00, 19 April 2007 (CEST)There may be a decent migration path that wouldn't break code. Consider the fact that Eiffel is about to embark on its ''Void-safety'' adventure: at first sight, this looks the mother of all breaking changes, but they have a reasonable-looking plan that should avoid most of the pain. The case of mutable strings seems very similar: a common cause of runtime errors that can be fixed by reversing the current behaviour. I think it's worth considering. All of the other options, with the exploding number of variations of strings (don't forget UC_STRING, etc.) and their conversion routines look much more scary to me.