🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3957@mucs.UX.CS.MAN.AC.UK> ian@mucs.UUCP (Ian Cottam) writes:
*Whilst agreeing with most things John posts, I think he is being a little
*hard on Wirth.  Having got my copy of "Modula: a language for modular
*multiprogramming, SP&E, Vol 7, 3-35, 1977" off the shelf, I cannot see
*(nor could I remember) any claim that Modula-1 was a successor to Pascal.
*Some quotes:
*
*	"... intended primarily for programming dedicated computer
*	systems, including process control..."
*
*	"...Modula is experimental. The presence or absence of certain
*	facilities is still subject to controversy."
*
*Perhaps you meant that someone else, other than Wirth, promoted it as a
*successor to Pascal?
*
*On days when I am wearing my hair-shirt, I look back on Modula-1 with some
*affection!

So do we! During 1977, we were getting a distributed computing research
project off the ground and chose to do our work in Concurrent Pascal.
Per Brinch Hansen was local at the time and was a consultant to my 
project. We took a long look at Modula and decided against it at that
time because it *WAS* an experimental language. As such, we were not
able to obtain a copy of either the compiler nor any source code with
which to work from ETH Zurich.
    During 1980, we were having problems with Concurrent Pascal and I
made a very dumb mistake by ignoring Modula-2 when it was announced.
I simply assumed that it was more of the same thing, new and improved.
Two years later (December 1982), I finally got around to looking at
Modula-2 in detail, learning in the process that it fixed most of the
problems we were having with the Concurrent Pascal technology. When I
realized the magnitude of my error, we promptly made the switch to
Modula-2 and have lived happily ever after.
-- 
-- Roger Vossler
   TRW, Bldg O2-1395, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
   BIX: rvossler      UseNet: dragon@trwspf.trw.com
   ATT: 213.535.2804          ....!trwrb!trwspf!dragon