🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2414@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> rwl@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>In article <3292@enea.se>, sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>> Pam Arnold (pmjc@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP) writes:
>> >This one may beg the question, but if any shop is REALLY SERIOUS about
>> >this sort of problem, why not switch to a more modern language,

>> Hear, hear!
>
>Hear?  Yeah, I would like to hear how Modula-2 is in any way an improvement
>over C.

>| Ray Lubinsky,                    UUCP:      ...!uunet!virginia!uvacs!rwl    |

For many situations, Modula-2 is NOT an improvement over C. I am not
claiming that it is an all-in-all 'better' language. It does, however,
require the programmer to use the language 'as is', whereas the C
preprocessor allows - some might say encourages - the programmer to
virtually remake the language. The original point I was responding to
had to do with the difficulties in creating and enforcing style rules
in C environments; the relative merits of C *AS A LANGUAGE* are not
at issue here.

One advantage I will claim for Modula-2 (and for Pascal as well): I haven't
seen any other languages in which algorithms may be expressed with such
clarity - a terrific plus where maintenance is concerned.