Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!iitmax!gkt From: gkt@iitmax.iit.edu (George Thiruvathukal) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Oh My! Modula-2 Book Summary: Standard Libraries Message-ID: <1991Mar14.191513.20184@iitmax.iit.edu> Date: 14 Mar 91 19:15:13 GMT References: <2177.27DB3A01@puddle.fidonet.org> <2441@sumax.seattleu.edu> Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology / Academic Computing Center Lines: 28 In article , stucki@amygdala.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki) writes: > The use of non-standard libraries should not be a disadvantage, > since the "standard" ones are rarely implemented correct wrt Wirth. > Cooper's IO module is much cleaner than either the InOut provided by > Metrowerks (for the MAC) or Sun. I agree with the principle stated above; however, non-standard libraries ought to have a standard implementation. Without a standard set of libraries or, minimally, a library which is implemented in the standard language, how can any degree of portability between implementations be achieved? It cannot be achieved. It is somewhat regrettable that Niklaus Wirth left the issue of libraries so open-ended that programmers cannot rely upon a minimal set of libraries from implementation to implementation. Even in the C language, one can count on input/output functions. As the above excerpt suggests, one should not be able to count on input/output (something so fundamental) being well-implemented by compiler vendors. Would it not make some sense that one ought to question the abilities of a compiler writer who cannot design and implement simple libraries to accompany his/her compiler? Further, if the standard libaries cannot be implemented correctly, how on earth is a variation on the same theme to be implemented? -- George Thiruvathukal Laboratory for Parallel Computing and Languages Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago