Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!netcom!seitz From: seitz@netcom.UUCP (Matthew Seitz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Which Modula2 compiler ? Message-ID: <22046@netcom.UUCP> Date: 26 Jan 91 23:11:09 GMT References: <64806.278dda66@pttrnl.nl> Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760 guest} Lines: 18 In article wolfram@cip-s06.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Wolfram Roesler) writes: > >The very best M2 compiler is a C compiler: faster, easier, better. Oh, please. C is not inherently faster than M2, it depends on the compiler. C is quicker to write, but harder to debug due to weak type checking, no bounds checking, and a shorthand syntax that makes typos easy to make and hard to detect. C is better for some applications, M2 for others. For a discussion of the merits of each language, see comp.lang.c and comp.lang.modula-2. A blanket statement like "C is better than M2" is like saying "a hammer is better than a screwdriver". I've used both and I prefer using M2. Your mileage may vary. Each has features the other lacks. -- Matthew Seitz seitz@netcom.UUCP netcom!seitz