🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello Nicolas!

In a msg of <27 May 91>, Nicolas Chrissakis writes to All:


 NC> Dear Modula2 users,

  <grin>  Well, I prefer to USE C, but Programming in Modula-2 is nice -- it's harder to goof up.... <smile>

 NC> In the previous years I used to see adds for modula2 compilers
 NC> in various magazines. Currently I see no adds  for modula2
 NC> on the BYTE and other popular magazines.
 NC> My question is: Is modula2 getting more or less popular?

  My guess is neither.  It seems to be well known, and accepted, but not terribly popular.  The lack of popularity seems to be due to 1) a preponderance of C programmers, leading to the C++ thing; and 2) a sudden supply of almost decent Ada compilers (well, ok, they're BAD compilers, but then the language writers didn't make it easy -- typical US gov't.).  I personally prefer C++ to Modula-2, because I DO know what I'm doing on a PC, but when we start talking about bigger machines, then I either want M2 or






 Ada (really Ada, if I don't care how fast the program runs.... <grin>).

 NC> Any answers out there?
 NC> I am trying to find out if there is any future in modula2
 NC> programming beyond the academia.

  Yes, I think so.  I believe that there is a future in programming in ANY language in which you can effectively produce new ideas and/or implement older ones.  The question is not really is the language popular, though, but more is the language both workable and improving.  I'm not so sure that Wirth is improving the language that much, as the compiler writers just haven't jumped on the bandwagon.  Most are trying to get C++ compilers out, and the C++ standard keeps changing (indicating that the language 






is thriving -- take a look at the C++ echo...).  HOWEVER, for algorithmic exchange, Modula-2 fills the gap just as successfully as its predecessor Pascal, and will continue to do so for a very long time.

     kwill


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!128!64!Kevin.Williams
Internet: Kevin.Williams@f64.n128.z1.fidonet.org