Preserving the old syntax without sacrificing the new (or Letting
evolution runs its course freely)

It is claimed that “100% syntax backward compatibility” [
https://youtu.be/ELeZAKCN4tY] is one of the major reasons against the
progress of drastically simplifying syntax. The worth of C++ would not be
the same if we ignore the entire evolution of C++ and the richness of
existing libraries, which no one could rewrite in a brand-new syntax. In a
natural evolution, the process involves not only the addition of new,
worthy features to the gene pool but also the elimination of the old and
nasty features from it. No one claims that if we write a new (C++) language
from scratch with all that we know now but without the baggage of
not-so-worthy features that are everywhere in great libraries, the syntax
would be so complex.

Current IDEs such as Microsoft’s Visual Studio comprise multiple C++
compilers, each associated with a different ISO standard. I fail to
understand why we don’t come up with a version “pragma” for each piece of
code, indicating which compiler version should compile it to produce the
intended assembler code (instead of compiling the entire set of codes with
a single compiler). What would be the unsolvable problem for linkers to
link those assembler codes produced by different versions of compilers?

This approach would limit neither “[1] the market for
vendors/suppliers/builders, [2] the set of libraries and tools for users,
nor [3] the set of collaborators (suitable employees, students,
consultants, experts, etc.) for projects” [
https://www.stroustrup.com/compat_short.pdf]. On the contrary, I would
surmise that this approach would enhance those possibilities by leaps and
bounds.

I am sure I am missing certain side effects here and there, but how
important and how difficult would they be, compared to the benefits of
producing and maintaining a cleaner code set by letting evolution take its
will freely?

Best,
--mehmet kayaalp