🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Froehlich wrote:
> 
> 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
Hello!

>    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").

I think best way to get a new (quasi)-standard is to implement such
things in
the OOC-Project. Since OOC is designed to be good-portable and hopefully
will
be ported to many platforms it can achive a "being standard"-position
equal to gcc.

Gruss...
        Tim.