This clam is harsh, but honest. I believe I can show that Dan has not
seriously considered his position.

First the definition of language stability.

"Language refers to the core language of a development system as opposed to
the product itself. That is, the core syntax and behavior of written code.
Excluded from this term is functionality that changes in character with
operating system or platform context (many API functions and user interface
functions). That is not to say that Product Stability is not important, only
that the discussion here regards Language Stability"

"The end result of a stable language is that a Module from one release will
compile and run correctly in the next release provided only that the Module
is restricted to core functionality (no platform specific API's or UI but
otherwise any code in any Procedure)."

Now, the reason why it is important.

"Completed Code is an asset to the Application or Library Owner. The source
language is the container for that asset."

There is a fundamental flaw here. The code is an asset. However, code
depends on both the language and the API. If the API is changed, then the
code will not work. And thus, its value as an asset is lost.

In conclusion, his argument is flawed because he is only considering the
syntax of the language. In order to discuss code as an asset, the stability
of both the language and all its dependencies must be considered.

Jonathan Allen