🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <9796@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, by oconnor@sunset.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor):
> It's difficult to see the logic in using Modula2 if
> a reliable Ada(R) compiler is available...[verbiage omitted]...
> Oberon seems to be a "poor man's Modula2", which
> I guess makes it a "welfare Ada" :-) I see no use for Oberon...[verbiage]...
> it has no unique problem domain in which it excels

***FLAME ON***
Bashing Wirth without understanding his point is silly, especially by
contrasting his work with Ada!  I may not be excited about Oberon, because
I am particularly fond of FOR loops :-), but it is more sensible to design
a general purpose language that accomodates abstractions efficiently than
to try to provide ALL abstractions as builtins!  Mr. O'Connors last point
about unique problem domains is VERY apt, but applies equally well to that
thing people call Ada.  Get Ada lovers out of this newsgroup; they don't
understand what Modula-2 and friends are for.
-- 
+--------------
| Clint Jeffery, University of Arizona Department of Computer Science
| cjeffery@arizona.edu -or- {ihnp4 noao}!arizona!cjeffery
+--------------