
Time safety is more important than memory safety - signa11
https://halestrom.net/darksleep/blog/036_timesafety/
======
aazaa
> I see choosing "new" languages (or frameworks) as very risky propositions to
> the life of a project. These languages are less likely to be around in ten
> or twenty years time (newer and better Rusts and Gos are likely to form in
> the years ahead) and in the meantime require you to constantly expend effort
> to prevent your projects from being turned into a brick by
> language/environment/library changes. In contrast my old C projects from 5-8
> years ago still compile and run, with one particular example only needing a
> small modification. It's not perfect, but C is much more likely to be the
> "safe" option if time x usefulness of your project is a goal.

The author's point would be strengthened by adding some examples of languages
that seemed exciting at the time, gathered a large following, and then died -
in the sense that software written in them no longer compiles or runs.

I'm not able to think of any. Just recently on HN was an article about a Web
framework written in FORTRAN of all things.

It seems more likely that software considered throwaway today will still be
chugging long after interest in the language has waned or been eclipsed by the
next thing. And there will be lots of these former throwaways, keeping the
language alive. Maybe for a very long time.

