Why Modula-2?
strictly noreply
wonder what everybody's interest in Modula-2 is. Are you simply
interested because you have to maintain legacy code or are you
actually doing new development in Modula-2, if so which area? system
development? embedded? GUI apps? Web? Or is your interest only due to
being taught M2 at university and you're out of here as soon as the
course finishes?
Chris Burrows
news:20fd74b4-b56c-45dd...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Google Groups reports 60 something subscribers for this group. I
> wonder what everybody's interest in Modula-2 is. Are you simply
> interested because you have to maintain legacy code or are you
> actually doing new development in Modula-2, if so which area? system
> development? embedded? GUI apps? Web?
My interest is mainly historical / nostalgic - Oberon and Component Pascal
have taken the place of Modula-2 in my development activities.
However, I still occasionally reuse Modula-2 code - it takes very little
effort to convert it over. Just this week I've been porting some graphics
processing code that I originally wrote in Modula-2 about 20 years ago to
Oberon-07 running on an ARM processor. Current 32-bit microcontroller-based
embedded systems have limited capabilities and resources similar to those of
the Modula-2 platforms of the 1980's.
> Or is your interest only due to
> being taught M2 at university and you're out of here as soon as the
> course finishes?
If only it had been taught when I was at university ...
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/modula2
Marco van de Voort
I've used (Topspeed) Modula2 in the past, and work nowadays with Delphi and
Free Pascal. I still monitor the group because it is Pascal's closest
cousin.
Gaius Mulley
strictly noreply <beekay....@gmail.com> writes:
Hi,
yes: to new development in M2 (gm2/gdb), maintaining legacy code
and new development in other projects. Embedded gm2 with (avr).
Hope to explore X11/OpenGL with gm2/python in the future.
regards,
Gaius
Georg Lokowandt
news:20fd74b4-b56c-45dd...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
from one language version to the next, so I stay with iso-m2 for the next
years. Legacy and new development.
Regards, Georg
Rob Solomon
language I like. I still do new projects for myself in Stony Brook
Modula-2. It works, produces fast small .exe files, and the debugger
works well (in its own virtual machine).
However, I have become interested in Ada and have started to play with
it. After all, a language required by our DoD will not go away any
time soon. It is a very active newsgroup, even 20+ years after its
initial release.
I would take the numbers reported by Google Groups w/ a GRAIN of sand.
I do not access this group thru google, and I suspect others do not
either.
--rob
Chris Burrows
news:eola451oih359fko5...@4ax.com...
>
> I would take the numbers reported by Google Groups w/ a GRAIN of sand.
> I do not access this group thru google, and I suspect others do not
> either.
>
AFAIK it doesn't matter whether you access the group via Google as to
whether you get counted or not. Google is just extracting the information by
analysing the messages. e.g. the number of *recent* authors is given as 31.
Unlike the Usenet feeds which typically only keep recent messages, it has
all of the messages posted to this group since November 1986. The busiest
month was October 1995. For a month by month count see:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.modula2/about
Christoph Schlegel
> "Rob Solomon" <use...@drrob1-noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:eola451oih359fko5...@4ax.com...
>> I would take the numbers reported by Google Groups w/ a GRAIN of sand.
>> I do not access this group thru google, and I suspect others do not
>> either.
>>
>
> AFAIK it doesn't matter whether you access the group via Google as to
> whether you get counted or not. Google is just extracting the information by
> analysing the messages. e.g. the number of *recent* authors is given as 31.
> Unlike the Usenet feeds which typically only keep recent messages, it has
> all of the messages posted to this group since November 1986. The busiest
> month was October 1995. For a month by month count see:
>
The posts from net.lang.mod2 are also still available (1983.1986).
http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.mod2/topics
net.lang.mod2 was renamed to comp.lang.modula2 in 1986.
First archived post from 1983:
http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.mod2/browse_thread/thread/9f317651b100cf8b
Chris Burrows
news:975b4$4a46137d$557f9732$26...@news.inode.at...
>
> The posts from net.lang.mod2 are also still available (1983.1986).
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.mod2/topics
>
Interesting - thanks for the link.
In those days most of the Modula-2 related correspondence I read was via
snail-mail in the "MODUS Quarterly", the newsletter for the Modula-2 User
Society and the "Journal of Pascal, Ada and Modula-2".
I still have my copies of JPAM and a couple of hundred pages or so that I
kept from various issues of the MODUS Quarterly in my office. One day I
might get around to scanning some of the more interesting articles /
letters.
Martin Brown
> I do not make my living programming, so I am free to code in whatever
> language I like. I still do new projects for myself in Stony Brook
> Modula-2. It works, produces fast small .exe files, and the debugger
> works well (in its own virtual machine).
It is also worth having a copy of the now free XDS M2 compiler. Its
static dataflow analysis of code is quite impressive for compiling
legacy programs and finding latent bugs in them at compiler time. It has
extensions to allow old JPI code to compile with minimal alterations.
ISTR StonyBrook was rather closer to PIM3.
>
> However, I have become interested in Ada and have started to play with
> it. After all, a language required by our DoD will not go away any
> time soon. It is a very active newsgroup, even 20+ years after its
> initial release.
>
> I would take the numbers reported by Google Groups w/ a GRAIN of sand.
> I do not access this group thru google, and I suspect others do not
> either.
I think they also count the number of distinct authors. General rule is
there are 12 lurkers for every regular poster in most newsgroups.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Olafur Gunnlaugsson
New dev, both in Modula and related languages
lk
"strictly noreply" <beekay....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20fd74b4-b56c-45dd...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
In my case I learned Modula-2 way back in 1992-93 at Uni. Loved it. Not
sure if it was just a great language (particularly for teaching) or the
platform we learned it on (Sun Sparc workstations running OpenWindows and
solaris) or the Sun Modula-2 compiler - which was brilliant.
Nowadays I write in java which I don't much like but of all the oo languages
it's convenient - besides which the compiler and ide is free!
I come here from time to time to see if there's any renaissance in m2.
Nemo ad Nusquam
I write new code (as well as maintain legacy code) but as a hobby. I no
longer develop code commercially.
I learned M2 after several years as a commercial developer and found it
far, far superior to C. Due to commercial constraints, I could only
write a few applications in it. That increased my respect for the
language. (The software world would be a very, very different place had
M2 taken off rather than C.)
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
strictly noreply
than a dozen or so :-)
Nemo ad Nusquam
> interesting replies, keep it up folks, there ought to be more M2 users
> than a dozen or so :-)
You might try asking on the gm2 mailing list. (You need not join to ask.)
Chris Burrows
news:4a4cbee1$0$5349$b9f6...@news.newsdemon.com...
> strictly noreply wrote:
>> interesting replies, keep it up folks, there ought to be more M2 users
>> than a dozen or so :-)
>
> You might try asking on the gm2 mailing list. (You need not join to ask.)
>
Also on the XDS Modula-2 forum:
http://www.excelsior-usa.com/forum/index.php?board=6.0
... and the Mocka and Modula-2 mailing list:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mocka/
... and the GPCP mailing list (also used for GPM2):
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/GPCP/
Christoph Schlegel
I had to learn Turbo Pascal in school in the early 90s. We used TP 3.0
with its outstanding IDE. Looking through some boxes of 5,25 shareware
disks I found a copy of Fitted Soft Modula-2 which was very similar to
Turbo Pascal in terms of usability. After years without Modula-2 I
played with Gardens Point Modula-2 for DOS and got reinterested in the
language. Since then I do small projects for home use in Modula-2,
mostly using XDS Modula-2, CGI and a browser to get nice interfaces for
my programs. Every now and then I play with the really impressive GNU
Modula-2 and I maintain the Free Modula-2 Pages since 2002 when it was
very quiet around the language.
Christoph Schlegel
Also interesting. I'd be glad to help you in making this available but I
think I am located on the opposite side of this planet...
Rainard Buchmann
"strictly noreply" <beekay....@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20fd74b4-b56c-45dd...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> I wonder what everybody's interest in Modula-2 is.
I'm programming in modula-2 since 1984.
First with a compiler of my own on a special german Z80-hardware,
porting my older Pascal-software from 1978 to this system and
making a client-server database and textsystem with this compiler,
then with a port of this compiler to a special M68020-system,
making an operating system in modula-2 for this hardware and
porting the database and textsystem with this compiler to it.
Since 1994 I'm using Stony Brook modula-2 on PC's, beginning
with 16-bit-DOS-version, then 32-bit-extender-version, since 1997
with Windows-versions (thanks to Richard Gogesch and Norman Black).
Nowadays I would say I'm programming 80% of my time in modula-2,
using VB6 when the focus is on GUI-programming, and some other
languages like Java, Perl, C, ASM - depending on the wishes of
my customers.
Whenever possible I work with modula-2 :
No other language makes it so easy for me to maintain great
projects over long times (the oldest projects really are from
1984 - always being changed and developed forth ...)
I have worked with other languages since 1970, beginning
with RPG, Cobol, Fortran, Algol60, PL/I, Algol68, BCPL,
Pascal, some Assemblers for different hardware ...
I don't know any compiler, that is able to generate such
compact and efficient code like the Stony Brook compiler
(except ASM - sometimes I'm using it, but it is a little bit
terrible :)
Over the last 25 years I have programmed a lot of stuff in
modula-2 - not just for fun but for money.
So I'm living mainly by programming in modula-2.
Rainard
Fruttenboel
wrote:
> wonder what everybody's interest in Modula-2 is. Are you simply
> interested because you have to maintain legacy code or are you
> actually doing new development in Modula-2, if so which area?
Well, I just LOVE Modula-2. I use it for all my programming (since
1998; before that I was into assembly language).
I'm a Linux guy so I use Mocka 0608m. Here you can read more about my
subjects:
http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/cgi/index.html
http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/AVR/avrdis.html.gz
http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/framestomp.html
http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/m4m/index.html
http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/mocka/index.html
http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/Prog/chall2.html
http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/Prog/chall3.html
plus all other quick and dirty test programs.
This http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/mocka/random.html is my latest
product.
M4M is a simple compiler for microcontrollers based on Wirth;s PL/0
sample language. It's finished, apart from the code generator. I'll do
that tomorrow.. ;o)
Modula-2 is my kind of language. I like to be treated with respect by
a compiler. Mocka helps me find my own weaknesses, instead of just
producing bad code.
For GUI apps you'd better start with Murus or embed Modula-2
executables in a TCL/TK script. Done that, works fine.
Let's say I'm addicted.
Terry Ross
Interesting. I don't know if it's possible, due to copyright
restrictions, but it would certainly be wonderful to have everything
scanned, like at http://www.atarimagazines.com/ and http://
www.cyberroach.com/analog/default.htm
--
Terry "qnr" Ross | http://www.aliboom.com
1024D/E5796C4D | Key BE84 EC1D FC94 D97B 9063 AD15 0F38 193A E579 6C4D
Source Mage GNU/Linux http://www.sourcemage.org
Martin Brown
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:52:04 +0930, Chris Burrows wrote:
>
>> "Christoph Schlegel" <mod...@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:975b4$4a46137d$557f9732$26...@news.inode.at...
>>> The posts from net.lang.mod2 are also still available (1983.1986).
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.mod2/topics
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting - thanks for the link.
>>
>> In those days most of the Modula-2 related correspondence I read was via
>> snail-mail in the "MODUS Quarterly", the newsletter for the Modula-2
>> User Society and the "Journal of Pascal, Ada and Modula-2".
>>
>> I still have my copies of JPAM and a couple of hundred pages or so that
>> I kept from various issues of the MODUS Quarterly in my office. One day
>> I might get around to scanning some of the more interesting articles /
>> letters.
>
> Interesting. I don't know if it's possible, due to copyright
> restrictions, but it would certainly be wonderful to have everything
> scanned, like at http://www.atarimagazines.com/ and http://
> www.cyberroach.com/analog/default.htm
Is there anyone left from the original Modus group to give a copyright
waiver and allow the articles that survive to be made freely available?
There were some gems but my copies stayed with the company I worked for
at the time (and will be long gone by now).
Might be worth crossposting a request to the other related groups. There
might be someone who knows someone still out there.
Regards,
Martin Brown
strictly noreply
interest in Modula-2 is mostly nostalgia or whether there is a large
enough here-and-now upon which any future would ultimately be
dependent.
I understand the interest in old magazines and don't mean to suggest
they aren't worth being made available online in some form or shape,
but I am somewhat concerned about what seems to be a past-leaning
spirit in what is left of the Modula-2 community.
A large number of Modula-2 websites have more broken links than
working ones and more likely or not, even the working ones point to
outdated information. Even those sites which are being maintained have
a significantly large amount of information that I would classify as
"nostalgia" or "historic".
I think this is counterproductive to finding new friends in this time.
There is a whole new generation of programmers who were born after any
of the PIM editions were released. If they look at the body of
Modula-2 resources on the web and get the impression they stumbled
into a virtual programming languages museum, they are very unlikely to
give the language a trial.
GNU Modula-2 is now approaching towards a 1.0 release, thus becoming
part of the GCC distribution in the process and thereby making
Modula-2 available to a very large audience. This is a very positive
development but I am not sure if this alone will get rid of the dead-
language stigma.
I believe we need to create *new* content and get it out there for a
*new* audience. What if Modula-2 had no past? What if there were no
articles from the 1980s and 1990s? What if Modula-2 had just hit the
road? We'd have to write new material and grow a community in the here-
and-now. I think that is the kind of approach required to build a
future for the language.
There are plenty of articles on today's programming problems and how
to solve them in Java, C#, C++, Python, Ruby et al. Let's do the same
for Modula-2. If we don't pull in that direction, I fear that the
language might not have a future.
Christoph Schlegel
> The reason I started this thread was to get an idea whether the
> interest in Modula-2 is mostly nostalgia or whether there is a large
> enough here-and-now upon which any future would ultimately be
> dependent.
Of course you are right - we should have started a new topic at some point.
> I understand the interest in old magazines and don't mean to suggest
> they aren't worth being made available online in some form or shape,
> but I am somewhat concerned about what seems to be a past-leaning
> spirit in what is left of the Modula-2 community.
>
> A large number of Modula-2 websites have more broken links than
> working ones and more likely or not, even the working ones point to
> outdated information. Even those sites which are being maintained have
> a significantly large amount of information that I would classify as
> "nostalgia" or "historic".
Yes. In my case the information is there by purpose.
> I think this is counterproductive to finding new friends in this time.
> There is a whole new generation of programmers who were born after any
> of the PIM editions were released. If they look at the body of
> Modula-2 resources on the web and get the impression they stumbled
> into a virtual programming languages museum, they are very unlikely to
> give the language a trial.
The history of a language in magazines and websites contains solutions
to problems, sourcecode, ideas. I don't think pointing to these
ressources means harming the Modula-2 community. Modula-2 is not a new
language.
> GNU Modula-2 is now approaching towards a 1.0 release, thus becoming
> part of the GCC distribution in the process and thereby making
> Modula-2 available to a very large audience. This is a very positive
> development but I am not sure if this alone will get rid of the dead-
> language stigma.
I'm also unsure but excited and hopeful.
> I believe we need to create *new* content and get it out there for a
> *new* audience. What if Modula-2 had no past? What if there were no
> articles from the 1980s and 1990s? What if Modula-2 had just hit the
> road? We'd have to write new material and grow a community in the here-
> and-now. I think that is the kind of approach required to build a
> future for the language.
>
> There are plenty of articles on today's programming problems and how
> to solve them in Java, C#, C++, Python, Ruby et al. Let's do the same
> for Modula-2. If we don't pull in that direction, I fear that the
> language might not have a future.
Regards
Christoph
strictly noreply
> Of course you are right - we should have started a new topic at some point.
No problem with that. The first paragraph was meant to be introductory
only.
> In my case the information is there by purpose.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to criticise. I meant to express concern
about the lack of new material (in general) and how I think it relates
to the future of Modula-2.
> The history of a language in magazines and websites contains solutions
> to problems, sourcecode, ideas. I don't think pointing to these
> ressources means harming the Modula-2 community.
The presence of old material itself does not, but in combination with
absence of new material, it amplifies the wide spread perception that
Modula-2 is dead.
For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't mean to suggest those articles
shouldn't be made available, but I did mean to suggest that there is a
need for new material, and quite *possibly* that need might be more
urgent.
Chris Burrows
> The presence of old material itself does not, but in combination with
> absence of new material, it amplifies the wide spread perception that
> Modula-2 is dead.
A problem I see is that much of the old material has been lost. This leads
to newcomers spending much time reinventing the wheel and trying to re-solve
problems that were done and dusted many years ago. Their time would be much
better spent building on what has been done before.
I suspect that your request for feedback on 'class-is-a-record' vs.
'class-is-a-module' in your recent post might well fall into that category.
I shall be going through some of the 1990's stuff tomorrow for some pointers
for you as I vaguely remember it was well covered there.
In many different fields many so-called 'new' inventions are old ideas that
either were not in the right place at the right time or were way ahead of
their time.
Generally if I'm a newcomer to a subject then I don't really care what the
date is on the information as it is all new to me. What is most important is
how accurate, relevant and meaningful the information is.
> For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't mean to suggest those articles
> shouldn't be made available, but I did mean to suggest that there is a
> need for new material, and quite *possibly* that need might be more
> urgent.
New people are in the best position to develop new material. What particular
areas can you think of that need to be covered that are likely never to have
been considered? Alternatively, what old ideas may have been rejected
because of the limitations of the time that may well be feasible now?
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
strictly noreply
>
> Generally if I'm a newcomer to a subject then I don't really care what the
> date is on the information as it is all new to me. What is most important is
> how accurate, relevant and meaningful the information is.
Over the last 7 or 8 years I have been involved in a number of open
soure projects, all of which happen to have been C based and a
significant number of participants have been folk a generation younger
than I am. From this I have gained some glimpse into the way these
youngsters tend to think.
I have also noticed a change in the way those folks think about C. Ten
years ago, if you met a C developer, they were absolutely convinced
that C is the holy grail, they'd get offended by the mere hint that
you might not think of C that way. In recent years this seems to have
changed.
Only 5 years ago, when I spoke out on some gripes I had with C and
mentioned how such and such would be far better solvable in Pascal or
Modula-2, it would start a flame war. Today, when I am doing so, most
C developers agree about that which I criticise and some of them would
go "Modula-2? you can do that in Modula-2?". Quite often they'd get
interested but more often than not they get frustrated with all the
dead links and loads of "nostalgia" in the absence of the kind of new
material they are used to with other languages.
So, as I see it, there is an opportunity to place Modula-2 as an
alternative to C for the growing number of C developers who aren't all
that satisfied with C but don't want to switch to C++ either. However,
from my experience, the lack of new material (or perhaps it's the
unfavourable ratio of new-to-old) makes this a hard sale.
Also, a lot of what I would call "nostalgia" material is articles
about some now defunct compiler about some now defunct platform, say a
rerelease of a Modula-2 compiler for the Commodore 64 or something
along those lines. Like I said, this alone wouldn't be a problem, but
in the absence of relevant material new folk are looking for, it
creates an overall impression of "dead language". But yet again, I am
not advocating *against* anything, I am advocating *in favour* of
something: more new material.
> New people are in the best position to develop new material. What particular
> areas can you think of that need to be covered that are likely never to have
> been considered?
The area I am working on would be an example. Papers on and
implementations of OO for Modula-2 may be a dime a dozen, but there
isn't a single one which could integrate with Cocoa and/or GNUstep
without the use of a bridge, which is suboptimal and not much liked by
the crowd that develops for these APIs. I tend to think if you can
find one such area, there ought to be others.
> Alternatively, what old ideas may have been rejected
> because of the limitations of the time that may well be feasible now?
Fair enough, but in this case, mere reproduction of an article may not
be sufficient, you probably have to edit or comment it and show how it
applies to a common problem today and why the earlier solution is both
feasible and desirable now. But that would in my view count as new
material, once it's been reprocessed, that is.
Pascal J. Bourguignon
In one word: "popularity".
This is a lost battle, so you have to make your own choice: does
Modula-2 offer to you personnaly some advantage compared to C? If so,
and if your conditions allow you to use it, then do and be happy. But
you'll be mostly alone (well along with friends here).
I'm not sure it's worth to discuss it a lot, because it has been
continuously discussed to death in other newsgroups, for example,
comp.lang.lisp, so you could read cll and transpose all the arguments
to Modula-2. (Lisp was invented in 1959, yes, 50 years ago, and has
had a standard since 1984, yes that's 25 years ago), and since ever it
has been considered a dead language. People have been constantly
complaining about the age of the documents, of the code, about the
perceived lack of libraries, etc. Nonetheless, new Common Lisp code
is being written every day. A (very) small number of companies use
lisp as a (secret) competitive advantage for their mission critical
applications or products. There are several free implementations that
are continuously maintained, there are several commercial
implementations with commercial support, and new libraries and
applications (web sites) are created everyday.
Now of course if you compare the situation with Java, which has the
marketting power of Sun and now Oracle behind it, which has
"methodologists" to sell it to corporations and hundred of millions of
jobs around it, well, yes, Lisp and Modula-2 are dead.
Even taking into account the hundredfold increase of productivity Lisp
allows, a lone hacker working on a lisp free library on his spare time
cannot pour the same energy into it than a corporation with thousands
of paid Java programmers working 8 hours a day, 22 days a month.
The only practical way I see to increase the diffusion of Modula-2
would be to write Linux drivers and kernel modules in Modula-2. But
again, what can a few Modula-2 programmers do compared to the
thousands of Linux kernel C programmers, backed by company and _paid_
to work on the Linux kernel or drivers.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Terry Ross
> "strictly noreply" <beekay....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64284ecb-ba99-48e7...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> The presence of old material itself does not, but in combination with
>> absence of new material, it amplifies the wide spread perception that
>> Modula-2 is dead.
>
> A problem I see is that much of the old material has been lost. This
> leads to newcomers spending much time reinventing the wheel and trying
> to re-solve problems that were done and dusted many years ago. Their
> time would be much better spent building on what has been done before.
>
[...remainder snipped...]
I agree. While I do believe we need a solid source of new material - and
also that this thread was not the appropriate place to bring it up - I
think old material is valuable. Not old as in "How to install Modula-2 on
your IBM PCjr, but general articles, applicable to the language in
general. I can't walk into the neighborhood bookstore or newsstand to
purchase Modula-2 related publications, after all.
strictly noreply
wrote:
>
> In one word: "popularity".
I don't think it is that simple. Lack of popularity has reasons. If
you can identify some of those reasons and address them, you may well
get a higher uptake.
In my view the lack of availability of an open source compiler across
major platforms is a death sentence for just about any language in
this day and age. Modula-2 has been suffering from that for a long
time but with GNU Modula-2 approaching inclusion in the mainline GCC
distribution this will be behind us.
The other obstacle to finding new friends is availability of relevant
information, and that is something that can be improved.
I am not saying that Modula-2 would be rivaling Java or C++ simply
because there's a GCC front end and a few wikis or whatever other
informational websites with articles how to solve common this-day
problems using Modula-2. However, I do believe improving the use of
Modula-2 is both possible and worthwhile working towards.
> This is a lost battle, so you have to make your own choice: does
> Modula-2 offer to you personnaly some advantage compared to C? If so,
> and if your conditions allow you to use it, then do and be happy. But
> you'll be mostly alone (well along with friends here).
The problem is that once you go below a certain threshold of users, it
becomes extremely difficult for the remaining folks to sustain. On the
other hand, if you go above a certain threshold of users a lot more
things get done, a lot more articles get written, a lot more tools
becomes available.
> comp.lang.lisp, so you could read cll and transpose all the arguments
> to Modula-2. (Lisp was invented in 1959, yes, 50 years ago, and has
> had a standard since 1984, yes that's 25 years ago), and since ever it
> has been considered a dead language. People have been constantly
> complaining about the age of the documents, of the code, about the
> perceived lack of libraries, etc. Nonetheless, new Common Lisp code
> is being written every day. A (very) small number of companies use
> lisp as a (secret) competitive advantage for their mission critical
> applications or products. There are several free implementations that
> are continuously maintained, there are several commercial
> implementations with commercial support, and new libraries and
> applications (web sites) are created everyday.
I would say that the Modula-2 community could call itself very
fortunate if it had anywhere near the critical mass that Lisp has.
Just look at the compiler metric: There have been a number of open
source Lisp implementations for ages. I's venture to say that a lot
more people know about Lisp than do know about Modula-2 and that a lot
more software is being developed in Lisp than in Modula-2. No, I think
Lisp is doing quite alright (even though I would not argue with anyone
who wishes it would do even better) and for Modula-2 it would be a
blessing if it could get where Lisp is already.
> Now of course if you compare the situation with Java, which has the
> marketting power of Sun and now Oracle behind it, which has
> "methodologists" to sell it to corporations and hundred of millions of
> jobs around it, well, yes, Lisp and Modula-2 are dead.
Well, I wouldn't compare them with Java. But I'd be inclined to
compare Modula-2 with Pascal/Delphi. I think it should be possible to
build and maintain a Modula-2 community roughly as strong as the
Pascal/Delphi community. The GCC front end will go some of the
distance, but there are other areas in need of improvement, one of
which was the theme of my post.
I is my hope, the availability of GM2 in the main GCC distribution
will prepare the ground for more folks producing more new content.
That should help.
> The only practical way I see to increase the diffusion of Modula-2
> would be to write Linux drivers and kernel modules in Modula-2.
or system related libraries, or servers, yes indeed, and why not?!
> But again, what can a few Modula-2 programmers do compared to the
> thousands of Linux kernel C programmers, backed by company and _paid_
> to work on the Linux kernel or drivers.
It's not that companies go to a particular project and say "We fund
you but you have to rewrite everything in C". It just so happens that
most of the projects out there use C or C++. If you come up with a
competitive or otherwise interesting project written in Modula-2,
there shouldn't be a problem to get funded. The problem is to find
developers and start the thing in the first place.
Christoph Schlegel
Definitly right, the need is there. I hope things to change as soon as
GM2 is an official part of GCC and developers using GCC (re)discover it
together with projects like Modulipse.
Fruttenboel
>
> I believe we need to create *new* content and get it out there for a
> *new* audience.
That would require the media pay attention to the language and the
media will not do so. Most of the media was taught that all languages
need a C n it. So Pascal still stands a chance.
> What if Modula-2 had no past? What if Modula-2 had just hit the road?
> We'd have to write new material and grow a community in the here-
> and-now.
In that case, take a look at Mocka. It's the only compiler left over
that has enough to build upon. FOREIGN MODULEs don't count.
> There are plenty of articles on today's programming problems and how
> to solve them in Java, C#, C++, Python, Ruby et al. Let's do the same
> for Modula-2. If we don't pull in that direction, I fear that the
> language might not have a future.
The market tends to adhere to chaos-like programming languages. A C
program has lots more potential since it contains more bugs and
security leaks. More bugs is more maintenance.
One application (of which I have been thinking a lot) is rewriting a
Linux kernel in Modula-2. Now that would be an effort. No security
leaks anymore. No more buffer over- or underruns. A mission critical
kernel.
Java, C#, .NET, Python, Ruby (on Rails) or Tcl are all nice languages
that get a lot of media attention. They slow down processors to a
grinding HALT and that's what Intel likes!
And, let's be fair, would a C programmer like to switch to a compiler
that tells him his coding style is weak (or bad)?
Why is it that we like to program in a Toyota-like language? And why
is it, that most other programmers prefer a Fiat-like language?
Fruttenboel
wrote:
> The only practical way I see to increase the diffusion of Modula-2
> would be to write Linux drivers and kernel modules in Modula-2. But
> again, what can a few Modula-2 programmers do compared to the
> thousands of Linux kernel C programmers, backed by company and _paid_
> to work on the Linux kernel or drivers.
Wow, Pascal, you are a tribute to your name! You hit the nail on the
head!
We keep the grail (the holy one). C programmers are constantly looking
for it. But they don't want our grial. They want another one. As if
there were two in the first place... ;o)
Fruttenboel
> It's not that companies go to a particular project and say "We fund
> you but you have to rewrite everything in C".
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Companies want source to be
maintainable. C programmers grow on trees, so they are easy to get
(pick?). Modula-2 is a better language (I say) but impossible to
maintain by a C programmer. Too logical. Too easy to comprehend. No
security loopholes to bypass. So, in a few word: not worth coding
for.
> most of the projects out there use C or C++. If you come up with a
> competitive or otherwise interesting project written in Modula-2,
> there shouldn't be a problem to get funded. The problem is to find
> developers and start the thing in the first place.
Get yourself a copy of the Murus project and transolate it to english
and finish it. http://www.murus.org/
Gary Scott
> On Jul 5, 4:24 pm, strictly noreply <beekay.nore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's not that companies go to a particular project and say "We fund
>>you but you have to rewrite everything in C".
>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure about that. Companies want source to be
> maintainable. C programmers grow on trees, so they are easy to get
> (pick?). Modula-2 is a better language (I say) but impossible to
> maintain by a C programmer. Too logical. Too easy to comprehend. No
> security loopholes to bypass. So, in a few word: not worth coding
> for.
that's true of almost any other high-level language
>
>
>>most of the projects out there use C or C++. If you come up with a
>>competitive or otherwise interesting project written in Modula-2,
>>there shouldn't be a problem to get funded. The problem is to find
>>developers and start the thing in the first place.
>
>
> Get yourself a copy of the Murus project and transolate it to english
> and finish it. http://www.murus.org/
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> On Jul 5, 4:24 pm, strictly noreply <beekay.nore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not that companies go to a particular project and say "We fund
>> you but you have to rewrite everything in C".
>
> I wouldn't be so sure about that. Companies want source to be
> maintainable. C programmers grow on trees, so they are easy to get
> (pick?). Modula-2 is a better language (I say) but impossible to
> maintain by a C programmer. Too logical. Too easy to comprehend. No
> security loopholes to bypass. So, in a few word: not worth coding
> for.
Indeed, Lisp history is full of examples of good and succesful lisp
programs that have been bought by commercial enterprises and first
thing, were translated to C or C++. Usually the results are not
pretty, and lisp gets a lot of blame for the failures of C and C++...
I have in mind Garnet (GUI toolbox) and ViaWeb (Yahoo Store).
It's even worse when the project survives successfully, its Lisp
origins are then entirely forgotten, and Lisp isn't even publically
recognized for its role in the prototype stage. (eg. PostgreSQL or
NeXTSTEP/Apple Interface Builder).
I was able once to convice a customer to let me write a MacOS driver
in Modula-2, which allowed be to write it in half the time.
Nonetheless, he exiged it to be rewritten in C eventually (for
ulterior "support" by random programmers, and it was at a time C
wasn't even common amongst MacOS programmers...).
So yes, it's definitely the case that companies go to a particular
project and say "We fund you but you have to rewrite everything in C"
(or Java or C++), both at small scale and at big scale.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> One application (of which I have been thinking a lot) is rewriting a
> Linux kernel in Modula-2. Now that would be an effort. No security
> leaks anymore. No more buffer over- or underruns. A mission critical
> kernel.
Rewritting a kernel is a nice and funny endeavor. It's not even too
hard.
But in practice, to have any impact, that kernel needs drivers. A lot
of drivers. For devices that are not always well documented, if at
all.
That's where Linux wins, even compared to *BSD. That's the real
reason of the success of Linux: it is the kernel that has the biggest
number of drivers, after MS-Windows.
So we're back to the same point: to make a dent with a kernel, you
need an army of programmers to write and debug the drivers.
There's a shortcut: make your kernel able to use linux modules and
drivers. Then you will have the bugs of these linux modules and
drivers.
> Why is it that we like to program in a Toyota-like language? And why
> is it, that most other programmers prefer a Fiat-like language?
This could be explained scientifically by the law of the mean.
http://www.amazon.fr/Ainsi-marchait-lhumanit%C3%A9-Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois-Geneste/dp/2756311030/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246817067&sr=8-1
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
strictly noreply
wrote:
>
> So yes, it's definitely the case that companies go to a particular
> project and say "We fund you but you have to rewrite everything in C"
> (or Java or C++), both at small scale and at big scale.
Well, all the examples provided are about the past of software
development, that is companies buying software. What I am talking
about is the now and here, companies using open source software and
sponsor developers to do maintenance and modifications.
In that model, the language matters not nearly as much as you
portrayed because the projects are neither initiated purchased by
those who eventually pay for them. I have done quite a bit of work in
this field and implementation language never mattered when obtaining
sponsorships. In fact a large number of DSLs are being sponsored. If
the companies who pay for those DSLs cared only about C, C++ or Java,
they certainly wouldn't fund further additions to the language zoo.
Ken Shaw
> Only 5 years ago, when I spoke out on some gripes I had with C and
> mentioned how such and such would be far better solvable in Pascal or
> Modula-2, it would start a flame war. Today, when I am doing so, most
> C developers agree about that which I criticise and some of them would
> go "Modula-2? you can do that in Modula-2?". Quite often they'd get
> interested but more often than not they get frustrated with all the
> dead links and loads of "nostalgia" in the absence of the kind of new
> material they are used to with other languages.
>
> So, as I see it, there is an opportunity to place Modula-2 as an
> alternative to C for the growing number of C developers who aren't all
> that satisfied with C but don't want to switch to C++ either. However,
> from my experience, the lack of new material (or perhaps it's the
> unfavourable ratio of new-to-old) makes this a hard sale.
>
> Also, a lot of what I would call "nostalgia" material is articles
> about some now defunct compiler about some now defunct platform, say a
> rerelease of a Modula-2 compiler for the Commodore 64 or something
> along those lines. Like I said, this alone wouldn't be a problem, but
> in the absence of relevant material new folk are looking for, it
> creates an overall impression of "dead language". But yet again, I am
> not advocating *against* anything, I am advocating *in favour* of
> something: more new material.
I second all of that.
I am a C/C++ programmer who was taught Pascal at university and my
first job back in the 80's involved converting some code from Pascal
to Modula-2. Since then it's all been C and C++. Over the years I have
become a little frustrated with C/C++ so I was looking for greener
pastures. GNU Modula-2 got me interested but it wasn't ready back
then, so I have been sitting on the fence.
But yes, most Modula-2 websites do look like "nostalgia" sites and
without the past experience converting code from Pascal to Modula-2, I
would not have stuck around. Lately I have been doing some stuff with
GM2 but I was unable to get any of my friends or colleagues interested
mostly because of the impression those site have made on them.
Just look at websites dedicated to other languages, even ones that
aren't mainstream, the D language for example. There is no contest.
And first impressions _do_ count if you are just checking out
something new that somebody else told you about but you never heard of
before.
People are used to websites which have documentation online, including
a bunch of HOWTOs, especially related to getting started, libraries,
source code repository, wikis, IRC channels and stuff like that. And
even layout and presentation matter, like it or not.
The Modula-2 freepages site looks nice in terms of presentation but it
doesn't have the kinds of articles a would-be-convertee is looking
for. Usually that kind of information would be on the sites it
provides links for, but those sites don't generally have the
information either, so where else do you go now? To the Google search
box, typing in the name of another language to check out, that's where
you go.
The GNU Modula-2 website isn't bad but could use a little work.
The MOCKA site is a joke. It has two paragraphs followed by "This is a
link to an older and deprecated version of this page." Deprecated and
no replacement for it! you don't expect any potential newcomer to go
any further, do you?
The Ulm M2C website is also a little too sparse, but it's far better
than the MOCKA site. XDS have buried their Modula-2 content inside a
website dedicated to Java and with a number of other sites you wonder
if the compiler is still being maintained at all.
The new Objective-Modula-2 website is quite well done, more like the
kind of website you see for other languages/compilers. However, it
doesn't have a repository for the source code, that's a non-starter
for any developer who might be interested to contribute. For the sake
of the project I hope you'll change that.
Keep up the good work, same to Gaius Mulley.
ken
Marco van de Voort
>> There are plenty of articles on today's programming problems and how
>> to solve them in Java, C#, C++, Python, Ruby et al. Let's do the same
>> for Modula-2. If we don't pull in that direction, I fear that the
>> language might not have a future.
(btw, where are the shootout implementations in GNU M2 ?)
> complaining about the age of the documents, of the code, about the
> perceived lack of libraries, etc. Nonetheless, new Common Lisp code
> is being written every day. A (very) small number of companies use
> lisp as a (secret) competitive advantage for their mission critical
> applications or products.
The point might be more that you need a strength as minority language,
rather than trying to patch up deficiencies.
Lisp apparantly has that CL stronghold. Haskell has huge following in math
departments, Ada the military and a very active French usergroup. Free
Pascal is attempting to do this with its quite close (and costly to
create!) Delphi compatibility modes, and Lazarus. GNU Pascal had a quite
decent Mac following at some point, but it eroded due to standstill in
development.
First one should carve out a strength for M2, and IMHO only then start
worrying about stuff that everybody does.
> The only practical way I see to increase the diffusion of Modula-2
> would be to write Linux drivers and kernel modules in Modula-2. But
> again, what can a few Modula-2 programmers do compared to the
> thousands of Linux kernel C programmers, backed by company and _paid_
> to work on the Linux kernel or drivers.
Linux/Unix is C domain from historic perspective. So much that they even
hampered C++ with backwards C compat. Don't bother trying to fight them on
your own turf. It is not fought on technical merits.
Chris Burrows
news:slrnh5437f....@turtle.stack.nl...
>
> First one should carve out a strength for M2, and IMHO only then start
> worrying about stuff that everybody does.
>
Good point. Providing a C-free alternative for Cocoa-based (Mac OS-X and
iPhone) development is a very good start.
>
> Linux/Unix is C domain from historic perspective. So much that they even
> hampered C++ with backwards C compat. Don't bother trying to fight them on
> your own turf. It is not fought on technical merits.
Another good point. IMHO Linux is following Unix so closely that it might
just end up with the same fate - i.e. there are two many different (and
hence confusing) varieties available. None of them has enough of a
difference to become dominant. Modula-2 should ride on the next appropriate
wave of development (whatever that might be) not try to play catch up with
the last one.
strictly noreply
> The new Objective-Modula-2 website is quite well done, more like the
> kind of website you see for other languages/compilers.
thanks
> However, it
> doesn't have a repository for the source code, that's a non-starter
> for any developer who might be interested to contribute. For the sake
> of the project I hope you'll change that.
There are one / possibly two developers who expressed interest to
join. A repository and a mailing list are on the TO DO list.
> Keep up the good work
thanks for the encouragement
Nemo ad Nusquam
[...]
>> What if Modula-2 had no past? What if Modula-2 had just hit the road?
>> We'd have to write new material and grow a community in the here-
>> and-now.
>
> In that case, take a look at Mocka. It's the only compiler left over
> that has enough to build upon. FOREIGN MODULEs don't count.
The freely available mocka only produces Intel code. I read recently
that about 3 billion PC shipped but over 9 billion ARM processors
shipped. Modula-2 is an excellent choice for embedded systems but,
again, very few freely available non-PC compilers.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Marco van de Voort
>> First one should carve out a strength for M2, and IMHO only then start
>> worrying about stuff that everybody does.
>>
> Good point. Providing a C-free alternative for Cocoa-based (Mac OS-X and
> iPhone) development is a very good start.
Not unique. Anybody with Mac orientation is working on it, since Carbon was
declared dead, with varying enthusiasm. Even FPC is working on it, though
with less objective-Cification (iow most needed extensions to interface with
COCOA only).
Of course, if you really can do something that can compete with objective-C,
while you won't replace obj-c, you could become a good second after
objective-C on the Mac platform.
>> Linux/Unix is C domain from historic perspective. So much that they even
>> hampered C++ with backwards C compat. Don't bother trying to fight them on
>> your own turf. It is not fought on technical merits.
>
> Another good point. IMHO Linux is following Unix so closely that it might
> just end up with the same fate - i.e. there are two many different (and
> hence confusing) varieties available. None of them has enough of a
> difference to become dominant.
If that were the only problem. The variance in the temporal dimension
worries me more than that.
> Modula-2 should ride on the next appropriate
> wave of development (whatever that might be) not try to play catch up with
> the last one.
Problem is that such things are an huge gamble. I rather go for something
small, and solid first, since you simply can't compete in riding fashionwaves with some
toolchain that has a bunch of fulltimers.
And anyways, in general, the influence and advantages of computer languages
are way overrated in such things.
Marco van de Voort
>> kernel.
> reason of the success of Linux: it is the kernel that has the biggest
> number of drivers, after MS-Windows.
Correct. There are more signs, like the driver state on odd-ball windows
platform (64-bit till recently, the 64-bit Windows port is 14 years old
starting with Alpha!), wince etc.
> So we're back to the same point: to make a dent with a kernel, you
> need an army of programmers to write and debug the drivers.
And somehow be the first in some aspect, because you also need a driver
force to leave estabilished systems.
> There's a shortcut: make your kernel able to use linux modules and
> drivers. Then you will have the bugs of these linux modules and
> drivers.
The module system is rewritten every major kernel version, and even
inbetween in more subtle ways. Personally I don't give such megalomanic
efforts any chance.
Better focus on creating a first class realtime operating system for
embedded use. The few that are there are often expensive. It will be easier
to survive there and the investments are less.
>> Why is it that we like to program in a Toyota-like language? And why
>> is it, that most other programmers prefer a Fiat-like language?
Like cars, image, and being the first one with something is important.
BK [noreply/posting only]
> > Good point. Providing a C-free alternative for Cocoa-based (Mac OS-X and
> > iPhone) development is a very good start.
>
> Not unique. Anybody with Mac orientation is working on it, since Carbon was
> declared dead, with varying enthusiasm.
Almost all efforts to interface to Cocoa are based on a bridge, that
is, a translation layer that copies and converts native OO objects of
the language in question to Cocoa objects and back at runtime,
everytime a class is accessed on either side of the bridge. This
approach is not only inefficient (performance wise as well as twice
the memory footprint) but it is also very difficult to implement such
that it supports the entire Cocoa API and then it may require further
work for GNUstep and again for Cocoa Touch.
Also, with Objective-C 2.0 now having an option to use garbage
collection, the lifetime of objects in both object systems needs to be
synchronised across the bridge which is yet more work. Implementing
and maintaining a fully featured bridge is not for the faint of heart
and many if not most bridges only provide a subset of the
functionality available to Objective-C programmers. From the viewpoint
of most Cocoa developers, bridges just suck. Don't take my word for
it, ask them.
The only bridge I have seen that I would say was well implemented is
the one in Clozure CL. They must have put a lot of effort in. It also
tries to preserve the Smalltalk syntax, only that it is :initWithFoo
instead of initWithFoo: and parentheses instead of brackets but any
Cocoa developer would feel home there.
The approach taken with Objective Modula-2 is to avoid a bridge
altogether by using the Objective-C runtime as its native object
system. This means there are no foreign objects which need to be
copied and converted, no translation layer. It means you can mix
Objective-C and Objective Modula-2 classes, within both la