🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7021@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes:
> In article <102@m2cs.naggum.se> frode@m2cs.naggum.se (Frode Odegard) writes:
> >
> >The removal of local modules from Modula-2 would render millions
> >of lines of Modula-2 code non-standard. One of the major goals of
> >the ISO committee is to avoid disasters like that.
> >
> 	Aren't Modula-3 and Oberon both Wirth-approved replacements for
> Modula-2?  If so, what's the point in developing a standard for a language 
> which its own author doesn't support?
> 


[Disclaimer: I'm a member of the M-2 ISO committee]

Modula-3 and Oberon are nothing more than research projects. They're
nowhere near of becoming Real, Commercial languages. It's no point
standardizing something which isn't widely used, and not even
finished..

Modula-2 on the other hand is widely used in the Real, Commercial
world. Never mind that OS/2 wasn't implemented in Modula-2, but at
least some SERIOUS projects have been done using M-2.

When something is widely used, it might be worth standardizing.
Modula-2 was pretty stable from the beginning, and we never really
cought the Pascal disease. A lot of hard cash has been invested in
Modula-2, and the users found a need for an international standard.

So..the reason we're standardizing Modula-2 is that there is a NEED for
Modula-2 standardization.

I'm also very happy about the approach we've taken with regards to
defining the language. VDM is used, which opens up enormous
possibilities for program-proving.

					- Frode