🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi!

On Do 07.03.1996 around 12:39:06 grieblm@trt.allied.com (Mike Griebling) wrote
in message "Oberon-2 Extensions and the ETH (was: bitwise and & or in Oberon?)":

> I agree with you about ETH's unwillingness to address language changes.  I think
> the Oberon-2 language should undergo a revision/review process every 5-10 years
> like other language standards (Ada) to add new technology, remove obsolete
> technology, and add requested elements which it can be shown add to the general
> safety and efficiency of the language.  

   This is a wonderful idea, but I don't think we will ever see this happen
(at  least  not at the ETH).  Maybe something like a "Net-Oberon-2 Project"
should  be  started,  evaluating  everything  published  on  Oberon(-2) and
producing  a  "Net  Standard"  that  could be adopted by "willing" compiler
implementors?

   I  think  that a language that is "Net Official", downward compatible to
Oberon-2  _and_ more powerful would quickly become dominant, no matter what
the position of the "real officials" is.

   The  project  would have to take care about not violating the "Spirit of
Oberon" too much though.  Even if I think that Oberon-2 needs extensions, I
still  believe  in the "Spirit" (but not necessarily the ETH interpretation
of that "Spirit").

> [...] Wirth is moving on to bigger and better things (in the
> hardware area) and no one else has either the authority or power to take a lead
> role in spear-heading such a revision/review process.

   I never thought that computer science could get that political.  :-)
                  _
By(T)e...   /| _ //3000 /\ People who use Pascal for serious programming |\
   Peter... \| \X/\miga \/ fall into a fatal trap.  (Brian W. Kernighan) |/