Modula-2: what went wrong?
graham...@virtual-worlds.biz
I was a big Modula-2 user from the days of Topspeed, through to
about 2001. We built simulation models (you can play with one here, if
you're interested:
http://bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/model/ - that's XDS Modula running
on Linux with a Java front end).
I haven't posted here in many years. The group was busier then!
I don't think we could have achieved anything like we did if we hadn't
switched to this family of languages (first Turbo Pascal, then Modula,
now I use Ada quite a lot (better support, uglier language) whilst
former colleagues use Delphi(ditto) ).
So, I have two questions:
1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
clarity and type safety.
2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
might be a hit? What would it look like?
I have my own views but would love to know what you all think.
Graham
Chris Burrows
in message
news:7c9a0c9f-3394-43de...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> So, I have two questions:
>
> 1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
> extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
> at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
> clarity and type safety.
>
Failed? Failed to have mass acceptance do you mean? Does that really
constitute a failure? I would rather be in the company of a few lions than
millions of sheep ;-)
After a decade or so using Modula-2 (M2MPC, Volition Systems, FTL and JPI) I
switched to Delphi in 1995 as, at that time, it was as difficult to write
rich GUI Win32 apps in Modula-2 as it was to write them in C / C++. VB was
eliminated as a serious contender within just a few hours' consideration.
> 2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
> might be a hit? What would it look like?
>
I was happy with the improvements of Oberon-2 over Modula-2 from a language
perspective but it wasn't until the .NET Framework 2.0 and Component Pascal
for .NET came along a couple of years ago that I was able to start replacing
Delphi as my tool of choice for implementing Windows apps with the clarity
and security of Oberon-style code.
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/modula2
Georg Lokowandt
"graham.k...@googlemail.com" <graham...@virtual-worlds.biz> wrote
in message
news:7c9a0c9f-3394-43de...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I was a big Modula-2 user from the days of Topspeed, through to
> about 2001. We built simulation models (you can play with one here, if
> you're interested:
> http://bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/model/ - that's XDS Modula running
> on Linux with a Java front end).
>
> I haven't posted here in many years. The group was busier then!
>
> I don't think we could have achieved anything like we did if we hadn't
> switched to this family of languages (first Turbo Pascal, then Modula,
> now I use Ada quite a lot (better support, uglier language) whilst
> former colleagues use Delphi(ditto) ).
>
> So, I have two questions:
>
> 1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
> extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
> at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
> clarity and type safety.
One point might be: it developed to slow and to many developments were
incompatible. I remember the overhead of porting my code from one compiler
to the other, from one operating system to the other. When ISO modula
finally arrived, other languages already had OO and generics. (there were
proposals to add those language elements to M2 as well, but again in an
incompatible way.)
Migrating away from M2 was always simpler than migrating from an other
language to M2. There is "mtc", but no "ctm"! This might be one reason why
Windows APIs stayed on the C-->C++ track.
M2 is a good language to express algorithms and to write new programs from
scratch. But migrating an existing project to M2 is hard, and most users
work in enhancing existing programs. This requires UI, DB connection and all
the things Delphi addresses. But Delphi is not M2, if you need to migrate
your M2 project to something different, you can as well go the way to Java
or C++.
>
> 2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
> might be a hit? What would it look like?
The current programming languages are not the end of development. For sure,
one of the following languages will put more emphasis on structure and
readability again. I will not tell you the killer details of the language I
will publish in ~20 years ;-)
>
> I have my own views but would love to know what you all think.
>
> Graham
Regards, Georg
Jim Granville
Nothing 'went wrong' with Modula-2, but many things have conspired
against it.
a) What is windows written in ?
That factor alone, gives the 'windows incumbent language',
(whatever it happens to be), a juggernaught advantage.
b) How large IS the Compiler industry ?
Not very large, look at Borland : one of the pioneers, and
they are re-branding into some corporate-warm-fuzzies
thing, with 'enterprise' buzz words. Going for fewer customers,
with larger dollars per customer.
Their actual compiler revenue is small.
Same with TopSpeed/Clarion.
Does microsoft still charge for their compilers ?
That leaves Modula-2 as a niche language, in an already
niche industry, with ststic/falling revenues.
c) Inertia and 'good enough'
These also conspire against change. C was 'good enough',
and a large number of cores release C first. There they
stagnate, as the effort to release any better languages hits
the repidly diminishing returns.
-jg
Gary Scott
It will be called Fortran 2008 (it's not to far from publication).
>
>
>>I have my own views but would love to know what you all think.
>>
>>Graham
>
>
> Regards, Georg
>
>
--
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
Marco van de Voort
> I haven't posted here in many years. The group was busier then!
>
> I don't think we could have achieved anything like we did if we hadn't
> switched to this family of languages (first Turbo Pascal, then Modula,
> now I use Ada quite a lot (better support, uglier language) whilst
> former colleagues use Delphi(ditto) ).
So do I (and Free Pascal).
> 1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
> extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
> at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
> clarity and type safety
IMHO the failure was twofold:
- general engineering and academics largely stopped using general purpose
languages, and switched to more specialised tools and Mathlab.
- The future of professional programming came from the US, while Europe
was(and is) the Wirthian stronghold.
The latter maybe helped by the fact that the dotcom bubble put a huge
pressure on all development to be quick, without standing back and examine
the options. When the dust settled, all other languages were dead.
Delphi is dying too I think. I've been looking out, but haven't found a
worthy successor. The problematic point for me is to make fast client apps
without many dependancies (I work for a machine Vision specialist), and also
create them reasonably fast and flexible.
> 2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
> might be a hit? What would it look like?
No. In my Pascal advocacy I find there is hardly any bottom to feed on. The
majority are relatively new arrivals that haven't known anything else. Some
parallels to say win98 times when a lot of the people know nothing about Dos
anymore and are scared of the commandline come to mind.
Currently it looks like native languages are going to be the Cobol of the
2010's. Everybody frowns upon them, but the number of programmers are low,
and the needs will be high, while the .NET/Java markets will be swamped with
programmers, and making a difference there will be difficult (though not
impossible).
I just don't want to create dumb webapps for mom and pop shops
for 5 years to get enough experience again.
> I have my own views but would love to know what you all think.
I'm going to hold out with Delphi, unless some really interesting comes
along. I get offered Delphi jobs nearly every other week, and I'm not even
looking officially.
Hobbywise, I've committed to Free Pascal a long time ago, and I always meant
to ride it out. Of course nothing is forever, but I'm still loving it.
Marco van de Voort
> Nothing 'went wrong' with Modula-2, but many things have conspired
> against it.
>
> a) What is windows written in ?
> That factor alone, gives the 'windows incumbent language',
> (whatever it happens to be), a juggernaught advantage.
And Unix was always C centric to start with.
> b) How large IS the Compiler industry ?
Very good point.
> Does microsoft still charge for their compilers ?
Yes, afaik it makes big bucks with it. (more than Borland/annum afaik).
> c) Inertia and 'good enough'
> These also conspire against change. C was 'good enough',
> and a large number of cores release C first. There they
> stagnate, as the effort to release any better languages hits
> the repidly diminishing returns.
A big problem is also that 32-bit dos C's appeared first.
Jim Granville
> On 2008-04-16, Jim Granville <no....@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Nothing 'went wrong' with Modula-2, but many things have conspired
>>against it.
>>
>>a) What is windows written in ?
>>That factor alone, gives the 'windows incumbent language',
>>(whatever it happens to be), a juggernaught advantage.
>
>
> And Unix was always C centric to start with.
>
>
>>b) How large IS the Compiler industry ?
>
>
> Very good point.
>
>
>>Does microsoft still charge for their compilers ?
>
>
> Yes, afaik it makes big bucks with it. (more than Borland/annum afaik).
>
I googled and found these links :
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/apr06/04-19VSExpressFreePR.mspx
"At this weekend’s Maker Faire, Microsoft Corp. will display how a
variety of innovative companies are using its now-free Visual Studio®
2005 Express editions to bring the power of code to the growing
community of 18 million recreational and hobbyist developers. "
http://www.turboexplorer.com/delphi
"The free Turbo Delphi Explorer edition is a fixed, all-in-one solution
which lets beginners and hobbyists learn programming and develop
applications using the Delphi language."
So the emergence of free, high grade compilers for students, and part
time, or shareware type developers shows a couple of things :
** Other free software offerings (Gcc, freepascal etc), helped push the
companies to do this.
** The revenue streams from this sector was not big. Large number of
users, but most happy one generation (or more) back from the leading edge.
-jg
Keith Hopper
<7c9a0c9f-3394-43de...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
graham.k...@googlemail.com <graham...@virtual-worlds.biz>
wrote:
[snip]
> So, I have two questions:
> 1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
> extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
> at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
> clarity and type safety.
> 2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
> might be a hit? What would it look like?
> I have my own views but would love to know what you all think.
As others have said, nothing is 'wrong' with Modula-2 that a little
blowing of dust and re-writing implementations from scratch won't fix.
This, of course isn't going to happen because writing a compiler from
scratch is in the 'too hard' basket for most commercial programmers out
there.
For a while I used Sather after Modula-2 as an insight into OO
programming. I spent a long time looking at the compiler and the compiled
code (which was re-written by the compiler into C and then gcc applied). I
had a student do a (quite good) rework of the Sather compiler to produce
x86 assembler - just to look at the efficiency problem - it was about as
efficient as gcc using O2. This, to me, meant that the language design was
not terribly efficient and, in particular that the Run-Time Engine was
heavily over-blown.
Modula-2 is an excellent language as it is very efficient when
compiled well - but it does not offer programmers a range of possible
programming paradigms - which seems to be the way modern language design is
going. I agree that many of these so-called new paradigms are written as
veneers on top of C or Java - which themselves are, to say the least, not
really type safe.
My solution? Back to the drawing board! One of the things that
intrigues me from a theoretical point of view is the much-touted initiative
to develop tools for proving program correctness. Some people are even
working on this as an'extension' to Java - which sounds fine, but
inevitably relies on the correctness of a Java implementation - and Java
isn't really a very flexible language to start heaving complicated
superstructures onto. I think a formally designed and implemented language
is necessary for this initiative to really work.
For a couple of years now I have been working on the formal design
(using vdm-sl) of a completely new language which has flavours of Modula-2,
flavours of Sather and Ada too. At the moment I am mildly stuck on two
fronts -
(1) The algorithms for converting a trace description into suitable
concurrency controls (a la Path Pascal sort of thing).
(2) The part of the run-time engine which will act as distributed
program communication manager.
It seems to me - as you may guess from these comments - that no matter
how hard we try to wrap it up, concurrency and program distribution are in
the 'very hard basket' for commercial programmers. I don't think that
Modula-2 helps in this regard (which may be another reason for its fading
away) - even though distribution and event driven programming are likely to
become the norm in the not too distant future.
What might it look like? Well - if anyone is interested -
http://srv.asgard.docs/esk.txt is my version of a compiler for my new
language!! All a bit tongue-in-cheek of course!
Keith Hopper
--
Inspired!
Jim Granville
The link does not work ?
The 'next frontier' is managing multiple cores, and multiple threads,
and elements of 'hard realtime' (usually relatively small), within
larger systems.
Some of my links, that may be of interest
Some fringe language work, in the 'provable' area
http://research.microsoft.com/foundations/AsmL/
and, since everyone is starting to offer 2,3,4 and more cores
this at the single chip level:
http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/xmo/xmo102.html
Which says
"Two compilers target the XCore processor engine an ANSI C compiler from
ACE Associated Compiler Experts and the XMOS XC compiler.
A mapper/linker builds object files from the source code and precompiled
IP modules.
The two compilers are seamlessly integrated for mixed C and XC projects.
XC is an XMOS-originated variant of C that supports parallel processing,
event-driven control and time-based programming.
A companion Eclipse IDE provides developers with a complete debug and
simulation environment."
Early days for them, but it is a complete system, and they may be
keen to assist some research under NDA.
Also, there was talk a while back, of Silicon that would run .NET
bytecodes directly, but that does not seem to have hit critical mass.
Maybe the leading-process x86 variants, can interpret faster than
a native NET device, 'a couple of generations back'.
Similar with java-silicon. Fringe work only, no sign
of critical mass being reached.
Plus, an ideal new language, should also be able to compile into FPGA
design flow - there are first generation C to Fpga hardware flows, that
try to blur the algorithm.
-jg
Marco van de Voort
> http://www.turboexplorer.com/delphi
>
> "The free Turbo Delphi Explorer edition is a fixed, all-in-one solution
> which lets beginners and hobbyists learn programming and develop
> applications using the Delphi language."
>
> So the emergence of free, high grade compilers for students, and part
> time, or shareware type developers shows a couple of things :
>
> ** Other free software offerings (Gcc, freepascal etc), helped push the
> companies to do this.
>
> ** The revenue streams from this sector was not big. Large number of
> users, but most happy one generation (or more) back from the leading edge.
Personally I think the latter, not the former. Programming ware became more
specialistic and moved to more expensive specialised retailers, and the
small packages probably also were a fairly high burden on support.
Borland has had free versions of Delphi sinds after D4 std, long before FPC
became compatible enough to compile bulk delphi code.
The gcc side is a bit better, but not much. gcc on windows has been painful
(to say the least) for years, and then a while it worked, but mostly only
with cygwin, not mingw.
jgut...@brokersys.com
> "graham.k...@googlemail.com" <graham...@virtual-worlds.biz> wrote
> in message
> news:7c9a0c9f-3394-43de...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> So, I have two questions:
>> 1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
>> extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
>> at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
>> clarity and type safety.
> Failed? Failed to have mass acceptance do you mean? Does that really
> constitute a failure? I would rather be in the company of a few lions than
> millions of sheep ;-)
Yes, that really DOES constitute a failure. Without an active and
reasonably large community, you don't get compilers for new platforms
or even fixes for the defects in the extant compilers. You also don't
get libraries for new functionality. The reason that you had to switch
from Modula-2 back in 1995 can only be called the failure of Modula-2.
To think otherwise is just whistling past the graveyard.
>> 2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
>> might be a hit? What would it look like?
> I was happy with the improvements of Oberon-2 over Modula-2 from a language
> perspective but it wasn't until the .NET Framework 2.0 and Component Pascal
> for .NET came along a couple of years ago that I was able to start replacing
> Delphi as my tool of choice for implementing Windows apps with the clarity
> and security of Oberon-style code.
I don't know why it wouldn't be fixable, though. It would take a lot of
work to build a system that people want to write in and build the
software required to make it a reasonable choice for new development.
Also, there's no reason why the language couldn't look a lot like
Modula-2. The biggest problem I see is twofold. First, the world seems
to have decided that object orientation is essential for compiled
imperative languages. Second, the hot languages among the sort of people
who gravitated to Modula-2 seem to be in the functional family. It's
been 20 years since the ISO decided to screw up Modula-2, and the rest
of the programming world hasn't stood still. It would be hard to catch
up.
--
Jonathan Guthrie (jgut...@brokersys.com)
Sto pro veritate
Chris Burrows
news:5v6od5-...@chromite.brokersys.com...
>
> Yes, that really DOES constitute a failure. Without an active and
> reasonably large community, you don't get compilers for new platforms
> or even fixes for the defects in the extant compilers.
Modula-2 compilers are available for the .NET platform, and for MacOS X.
What other new platforms are you referring to?
> You also don't get libraries for new functionality.
That doesn't follow. With .NET Modula-2 you get access to the libraries and
functionality of the .NET framework (70,000+ units?). I haven't had a close
look at the MacOS X compiler but I would be surprised it it doesn't have the
ability to call the MacOS X libraries.
>
> Also, there's no reason why the language couldn't look a lot like
> Modula-2. The biggest problem I see is twofold. First, the world seems
> to have decided that object orientation is essential for compiled
> imperative languages.
Anybody who wants object-orientation in a Modula-2 style language should use
Component Pascal. After all it is a direct descendant of Modula-2 and could
just as well be called Component Modula or Component Oberon.
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
jgut...@brokersys.com
> <jgut...@brokersys.com> wrote in message
> news:5v6od5-...@chromite.brokersys.com...
>> Yes, that really DOES constitute a failure. Without an active and
>> reasonably large community, you don't get compilers for new platforms
>> or even fixes for the defects in the extant compilers.
> Modula-2 compilers are available for the .NET platform, and for MacOS X.
> What other new platforms are you referring to?
I run 64-bit Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris, and I have no
particular desire to do anyting with ".NET".
Gary Scott
business systems to use .net or some other proprietary <crap>
development system.
Chris Burrows
news:hbvqd5-...@chromite.brokersys.com...
> Chris Burrows <cfbso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <jgut...@brokersys.com> wrote in message
>> news:5v6od5-...@chromite.brokersys.com...
>
>
>> What other new platforms are you referring to?
>
> I run 64-bit Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris
I haven't done any *nix based development since the early 90's so haven't
tried it myself but GNU Modula-2 is one compiler in development for such
systems.
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/modula2
lk
"graham.k...@googlemail.com" <graham...@virtual-worlds.biz> wrote
in message
news:7c9a0c9f-3394-43de...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I was a big Modula-2 user from the days of Topspeed, through to
> about 2001. We built simulation models (you can play with one here, if
> you're interested:
> http://bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/model/ - that's XDS Modula running
> on Linux with a Java front end).
>
> I haven't posted here in many years. The group was busier then!
>
> I don't think we could have achieved anything like we did if we hadn't
> switched to this family of languages (first Turbo Pascal, then Modula,
> now I use Ada quite a lot (better support, uglier language) whilst
> former colleagues use Delphi(ditto) ).
>
first language I learned properly (no alternative - it's what we were taught
at Uni). I then moved on to Visual Basic and now Java.
> So, I have two questions:
>
> 1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
> extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
> at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
> clarity and type safety.
>
reason IMHO Modula2 died. Agree completely that clarity and type safety
were very very strong with m2 - but I never saw (though I bow to others) a
decent
way of m2 handling objects. To my mind, the best m2 compiler I ever used
was Sun's. I played a lot with the FST M2 for DOS and m2amiga on the Amiga
(not surprisingly) but Sun's modula2 compiler was excellent. OTTOMH none
of these handled objects very well and IIRC m2amiga was the only one that
came close with its AmigaTreasures library.
> 2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
> might be a hit? What would it look like?
>
I fear it's not fixable. Recently, I took a course with the open
university (www.open.ac.uk) - course code M263 if anyone's interested. The
title is "building blocks of software" but it's basically a 2nd year
computer science course that I've heard called other things like Data
Structures and Algorithms. I was very disappointed with the "course code"
(which is m263 specific) - to me it would have been a perfect opportunity to
use something that's heavily typed like Modula2 to show off algorithms like
recursion, different sort methods etc. In fact the m263 course code was
IMHO a lot harder to comprehend than modula2.
This brings me back to the point - if academia has moved away from languages
like m2 in teaching rather basic algorithm design (efficiency etc) then I'd
very much doubt that m2 could ever resurface.
> I have my own views but would love to know what you all think.
>
> Graham
My own view is that where possible, you use the best tool for the job. I'm
not a C programmer, but if I were, I'd use gcc on a UNIX box. I would not
look for a Windows option. If I wanted to do something graphics intensive,
I'd head for OpenGL on a Mac. Back to the plot, if I were writing a course
textbook for m263, then I'd use Modula2 and the beauty is it's available for
most platforms (or certainly it was).
I think m2 failed because of a perceived lack of oo support. Therein lies
the problem - m2 isn't and shouldn't be an oo language.
I would dearly love to see m2 come back in the teaching of computer science
but I think that ship has sailed. For it to happen, there would need to be
a really good open source m2 compiler available for most platforms aimed
squarely at academia. Without a huge amount of work, oo m2 is a
non-runner.
Cheers
Rob
Christoph Schlegel
[snip]
> Therein lies
> the problem - m2 isn't and shouldn't be an oo language.
Some time after the release of the base standard for ISO Modula-2,
object orientation was also standardized. The project was called "JTC
1.22.18.02 Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2". From the ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC22/WG13 Homepage (wich is "the international standardization
working group for the programming language Modula-2"): "The model chosen
for object oriented extensions has both modules and classes; has single
inheritance and has multiple roots. The document has been published as
ISO/IEC 10514-2:1998."
As far as I know only p1 Modula-2
(http://www.awiedemann.de/compiler/index.html) implements this extension.
Or did you want to say in your opinion Modula-2 should not be an object
oriented language?
jgut...@brokersys.com
> jgut...@brokersys.com wrote:
>> Chris Burrows <cfbso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Modula-2 compilers are available for the .NET platform, and for MacOS X.
>>>What other new platforms are you referring to?
>> I run 64-bit Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris, and I have no
>> particular desire to do anyting with ".NET".
> I have no DESIRE either, but my company requires all new development for
> business systems to use .net or some other proprietary <crap>
> development system.
I have been developing professionally (that is, as part of my day job)
for Linux since 1995. Since 1998, it's been the only operating system
I've been paid to write for. So, not only do I not have any desire to
work wit .NET, I have no particular incentive to do so, either.
That's not really the point, though. The point is that you need a
robust community to continue a technology. Is the Modula-2 community
robust? Well, apparently it's robust enough to support compilers on
systems other than the ones I use and develop for. I think it's safe to
say that the interest level in Modula-2 development among the general
programming population is not on the ascendancy and it's tough to even
maintain a user community if you aren't attracting enough new users.
Does that mean M2 has failed? That's a matter of perspective. It's
clear that Mr. Burrow's opinion is different from mine.
jgut...@brokersys.com
> <jgut...@brokersys.com> wrote in message
> news:hbvqd5-...@chromite.brokersys.com...
>> Chris Burrows <cfbso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> <jgut...@brokersys.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5v6od5-...@chromite.brokersys.com...
>>> Modula-2 compilers are available for the .NET platform, and for MacOS X.
>>> What other new platforms are you referring to?
>> I run 64-bit Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris
> I haven't done any *nix based development since the early 90's so haven't
> tried it myself but GNU Modula-2 is one compiler in development for such
> systems.
Yes, and it appears to be at about at the same stage of development as it
was when I last looked at it several years ago. Contrast this with other
GCC supported languages, such as FORTRAN and Ada, whose compilers have gone
through multiple revisions with significant enhancement and extension in
the mean time.
I have access to a staggering variety of languages that are prepackaged,
which come with extensive library support, which are not part of the GCC,
and which are all available for me to install with the click of a mouse.
Mercury and Haskell and ML and the really cool Smalltalk system called
Squeak and the parallel language Erlang and at least four different
flavors of Lisp. Heck, there's even a Pascal. (Two, actually, but one
is part of the GCC.)
That doesn't count the "scripting languages" (Perl, Python, Ruby, etc.)
that have only one implementation, but dozens of available packages to
support everything from arcade-type game development to building robust
Internet servers. Now, you'll never see the sort of activity with a
language like Modula-2 (or even C, C++, and the like) that you do with a
scripting language because the barrier to entry is so low with a
scripting language. Any fool can program in them, and most of them do.
Anyway, it's not a fair comparison. However, if you want to know what
a robust user community looks like, that's it.
For Modula-2, I've got mocka and m2c prepackaged Neither of which seems
to have much work going on with them. Not with the packaged versions,
anyway. I CAN download and fiddle around with GM2 (well, I can once my
Internet service comes back up, which it will have by the time you read
this or you won't be able to read it) but I've got other things I'd
rather fiddle around with.
Gary Scott
OO has been grafted onto many other languages. Fortran is now highly
object oriented and alive and well.
>
> I would dearly love to see m2 come back in the teaching of computer science
> but I think that ship has sailed. For it to happen, there would need to be
> a really good open source m2 compiler available for most platforms aimed
> squarely at academia. Without a huge amount of work, oo m2 is a
> non-runner.
>
> Cheers
> Rob
>
>
lk
"Christoph Schlegel" <mod...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:48939$480b4d19$557f970e$24...@news.inode.at...
Yes - that's what I'm saying. Some languages suit certain tasks better
than others and IMHO m2 should stick to what it does best - which IMHO isn't
oo.
Christoph Schlegel
That is what I thought until there was the success of Turbo Pascal 5.5+,
but I never tried to program object oriented in Modula-2 (there was no
Turbo Vision) - I tend to share your point of view out of a feeling. Are
there any people out there who program oo Modula-2?
Marco van de Voort
(some random remarks, not necessarily entirely on topic)
> My own view is that where possible, you use the best tool for the job. I'm
> not a C programmer, but if I were, I'd use gcc on a UNIX box.
I too, but only when making a system utility, not creating an application by
a fulltime programmer. GCC, and even C at large, was never designed for that.
> If I wanted to do something graphics intensive,
> I'd head for OpenGL on a Mac.
Extending the same reasoning as with Unix, in Objective C ?
Marco van de Voort
> I have access to a staggering variety of languages that are prepackaged,
> which come with extensive library support, which are not part of the GCC,
> and which are all available for me to install with the click of a mouse.
> Mercury and Haskell and ML and the really cool Smalltalk system called
> Squeak and the parallel language Erlang and at least four different
> flavors of Lisp. Heck, there's even a Pascal. (Two, actually, but one
> is part of the GCC.)
Yes. And if I win the lottery I'm still going to implement a M2 frontend to Free
Pascal. :-)
Free Pascal is btw link compatible to gcc (iow one can statically link in
gcc libraries) Don't forget to also check for "Lazarus" (http://Lazarus.freepascal.org). It
might look familiar from somewhere.
The GNU Pascal one is quite silent nowadays. However the project is not
really open to inside peeks (having no public RCS or snapshotting system),
so I could be wrong.
> language like Modula-2 (or even C, C++, and the like) that you do with a
> scripting language because the barrier to entry is so low with a
> scripting language. Any fool can program in them, and most of them do.
> Anyway, it's not a fair comparison. However, if you want to know what
> a robust user community looks like, that's it.
Hmm, I've seen some complaints about people that try to really base
themselves on scripting languages. Nearly all relating to large scale, and
long term use though. It would be logical that that is not the real use case
for scripting languages, but those usercommunities seem to suggest it is.
graham...@virtual-worlds.biz
> Hmm, I've seen some complaints about people that try to really base
> themselves on scripting languages. Nearly all relating to large scale, and
> long term use though. It would be logical that that is not the real use case
> for scripting languages, but those usercommunities seem to suggest it is.
My own view is that the success of a programming language nowadays is
as much a social issue as technical one. Ruby, Perl and PHP have
wonderfully supportive communities surrounding them. I've sometimes
felt that there was an atmosphere of intolerance round the Pascal
family.
BTW, can someone change the thread title back to "What Went Wrong?"
please, or something similar? I'm posting from Google and don't see
how to do that.
Marco van de Voort
>> Hmm, I've seen some complaints about people that try to really base
>> themselves on scripting languages. Nearly all relating to large scale, and
>> long term use though. It would be logical that that is not the real use case
>> for scripting languages, but those usercommunities seem to suggest it is.
>
> My own view is that the success of a programming language nowadays is
> as much a social issue as technical one. Ruby, Perl and PHP have
> wonderfully supportive communities surrounding them. I've sometimes
> felt that there was an atmosphere of intolerance round the Pascal
> family.
I recognize that, and it is similar with e.g. C (where you constantly got
flamed over standards details, C and POSIX).
But I think that is pretty explainable that the scripting languages groups
are more homogenous than e.g. C of Pascal in the days of yore. Most of them
are not really programmers, but people customizing some framework for own
use, rather than fulltime programmers creating software.
See also the remark in prev post about problems for larger apps before. They
don't fit in -> friction.
> BTW, can someone change the thread title back to "What Went Wrong?"
> please, or something similar? I'm posting from Google and don't see
> how to do that.
Done.
Keith Hopper
When I wrote -
> > What might it look like? Well - if anyone is interested -
> > http://srv.asgard.docs/esk.txt is my version of a compiler for my new
> > language!! All a bit tongue-in-cheek of course!
Jim Granville <no....@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
> The link does not work ?
Call that a typo??? Ouch! Mea culpa!
The link should have been http://srv.asgard.org.nz/docs/esk.txt
Sorry! I've been out of e-mail contact over the weekend so
my apologies for delay/errors, etc.
Keith
--
Sky Development