🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 26 Sep 1995 kominek@links.uwaterloo.ca wrote:

> The kicker is: why did not IBM (the source of this paper, I gather),
> heed their own research? They should. The reason why IBM delayed 
> introduction of the PowerPC personal computer is quite transparent.
> Because they are unable to port OS/2 in a timely fashion. One 
> programmer in the know called it a "big bag of dirt," i.e. a 
> convoluted mess of C and assembly. Viewed from the outside the
> operating system is wonderful. But on the inside ....

Okay, C is admittedly far from ideal, especially for large projects. 
However, Modula-2 is also far from perfect. If OS/2 is such a mess, maybe 
the design was at fault. You also have to remember OS/2's 16-bit origins 
-- assembly code was probably necessary.

What programmers like about C is its power (which is, unfortunately, all 
too often abused), its simplicity, and its consistency (well, sometimes). 
C++ helps in many ways, but it is very different, of course, being an 
object-oriented programming language. However, C++ also manages to 
eliminate one of C's greatest strengths: its simplicity. (SmallTalk is 
much more elegant for pure OOP, IMHO.)

The Modula-n programming languages are pretty good. However, they suffer 
in their Pascal heritage. The C-type syntax is much more concise and 
consistent (no flames please). What the world needs is a language that 
offers both simplicity and elegance, along with the ability to 
self-organize and self-document (code, that is). Is it time for a D 
programming language?

- Trung