🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1717.285A64EB@puddle.fidonet.org> Kevin.Williams@f64.n128.z1.fidonet.org (Kevin Williams) writes:
>Modula-2 has a great chance of making good sense of object orientedness,
>if they would get away from the standards of thinking and teaching (and
> especially if they would quit saying that THIS way is the ONLY way).

I tend to agree with you, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the
topic.  In any event, I have not seen anyone mention Wirth's own comments on
the subject - when asked why no ** was defined for Pascal (and I presume this
applies to Modula and Oberon, as well) was that it is non-trivial to calculate
independently of the program in which it is most likely to be used.  It was
*his* feeling that most uses of the ** operator in FORTRAN was within loops,
usually calculating a series of some sort.  He felt most strongly that the
programmer should be calculating the exponent as part of the loop, by repeated
addition or multiplication of either the previous exponent or the loop control
variable.  He is not well-respected for this.  As I recall, Jean Ichbiah (the
man responsible for inflicting - I mean, *providing* - Ada to the world) had
a bit of an argument with him at the symposium (don't recall which one) over
this topic.  Wirth believes in tiny, highly-orthogonal languages with teeny
little compilers that programmers can use safely.  Ichbiah believes compilers
should be huge, gigantic things, with all previous programming problems ever
encountered encapsulated within so no one has to rewrite them as a library
module.  Who's right?  Depends on your own perspective.  I think Wirth is
*closer* to right, but I was unhappy with Oberon (it seemed to toss out a bit
of the baby with the bathwater).  But Ada just seems right out.

-- 

Larry Smith
smith@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...