Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!warwick From: warwick@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Which Modula2 compiler ? Message-ID: <7031@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> Date: 28 Jan 91 21:47:55 GMT References: <64806.278dda66@pttrnl.nl> <22046@netcom.UUCP> <11688@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Sender: news@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au Reply-To: warwick@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au Lines: 23 In <11688@pt.cs.cmu.edu> redmond@ius1.cs.cmu.edu (Redmond English) writes: >In article <22046@netcom.UUCP> seitz@netcom.UUCP (Matthew Seitz) writes: >>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. > >I've used both and I prefer using M2. > > >In my experience, M2 is *much* better than C when engaging in a >multi-person project. I have to agree: and add that M2 is *far* better than C when you intent to write a lot of software, because of the inherent modularity that allows you to write a module, then ignore its detains and just USE it! -- ________________________________________________________ This .signature intentionally left blank ________________________________________________________