🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ecerq$93h@wariat.wariat.org>, 
enikitin@junior.wariat.org (Eric W. Nikitin) writes:

> I must admit, I was also somewhat disappointed when I first got
> PIO. Besides the types of errors you have pointed out, there is
> a decided lack of consistency of style. I could, of course, write
> Oberon programs that look very much like the Pascal I learned
> many years ago. But to take full advantage of Oberon's (and 
> Oberon-2's) extensibility, you must program in a different 
> style. There are definitely fewer books and other resources
> for those wanting to learn Oberon than for more 'popular'
> languages like C++. It is a shame that PIO isn't as good a
> resource as it could be. Perhaps 'Object Oriented Programming
> in Oberon-2' is better... but I haven't read it so I can't say for
> certain.

I think both books are very good, but unfortunately there are 
occasional inconsistencies also in OOPinO2, of the sort discussed 
in a series of postings on NEW(p). This is of course unfortunate, 
but with some persistence one can figure them out rather easily.
For me personally OOPinO2 was more difficult to read than PIO, 
but this is of course subjective. E.g., I have had lots of problems 
to understand Model-View-Controller, and how to put it to action 
in my own programs. 

BTW, the pointer stuff is no different from Pascal, and there 
are many excellent books on Pascal available. 

Wojtek