🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr8.205015.12217@aero.org>, jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) 
writes:

> I would not go back to V1.

For one who does development in one language, Modula-2, version 1 is adequate.
Version 2, while it employs the expected extensions for OOP support, really
gives Modula-2 programmers nothing new in terms of library support (and in
particular class libraries).  I believe object-oriented languages are almost
totally uninteresting without some decent class libraries (or modules).  In
a previous message I advised OOP enthusiasts to examine the current debacle
associated with the C++ standardization efforts.

> As to the C'ness complaints I've seen leveled at the product--hogwash.
> I'm not particularly enamored with C, but have not been tainted by
> using JPI M2!  Regarding libraries...If the intent is to build a
> multi-lang. platform, then one will probably want to capitalize on
> REUSE.  The same debugger, the same code generator, the same or a
> shared subset of core libraries.  At the lowest levels
> who cares if the same resources are shared by C and Modula-2?! 

Actually, I don't think anybody really cares, save a few purists who really
could care less about "silly implementation details."  Usually, these same 
people never get anything done.  I would argue, based on language features,
that it would not be sensible for all library functions to be sharable, which
I must confess is purist in nature.  It does not make any sense for a Modula-2
programmer to call the C printf function, because Modula-2 does not support
variable arguments and weak-typing.  I think JPI marred the languages by 
bludgeoning them into submission to such foolishness.  This is perhaps the
only point I would make against JPI's work, as they have been very innovative
wrt their project system, common code generation, and the "plug-n-go" idea.

-- 
George Thiruvathukal

Laboratory for Parallel Computing and Languages
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago