Article View: comp.lang.modula2
Article #2873Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++)
From: "Mark Morgan Lloyd "
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 18:57
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 18:57
21 lines
1298 bytes
1298 bytes
> (I wish there was an M3 for OS/2 - with threads it seems a natural, but > I've never seen a port). Interesting comment, since the original reason that I was interested in Modula-2 was because I was working with a threaded operating system (twelve years ago) and wanted a language which would abstract them. I must say that there is a particularly good match between OS/2 DLLs and Modula-2 definition modules (except for that fact that one would need a way of having multiple implementation modules for one definition module, and there is no rigorous way of testing at runtime that a DLL is the right version i.e. that the types etc. are correct). I wonder what would have happened to the industry if there had been a Visual Modula-2 for OS/2-PM in 1988? Mark Morgan Lloyd mark_tbu@cix.compulink.co.uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<DFvzB7.17s@cix.compulink.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenetReferences:
<44rbgn$2sh@news2.cts.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
From: mark_tbu@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mark Morgan Lloyd ")
Subject: Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++)
Message-ID: <DFvzB7.17s@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: KDG Mobrey Telemetry
References: <44rbgn$2sh@news2.cts.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 18:57:07 GMT
X-News-Software: Ameol