🚀 go-pugleaf

George writes:

> 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.

Important point missed here. If you are doing a mixed language programming
(say you dont have time to re-write someones excellent C-based library of
routines that sing and dance), then the advantage of a common library base is
smallness of resultant code. If the library stuff isnt in common, then you link
in both languages support stuff. This I am sure was JPI intent ( I was one of
those who suggested it to JPI on BIX...).

Then of course printf isnt lovely but then neither is M2's individual calls
for each IO item... :-)     Personally, I support the idea of operator
overloading and variable no. of parameters in procedure calls. It seems to
me to be lack of imagination to suggest that compilers cant do this safely.
(and yes, I have suggestions which involve minimal new syntactic elements).
Add those features and you get real power in the libraries.

	Phil