Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!midway!iitmax!gkt From: gkt@iitmax.iit.edu (George Thiruvathukal) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: BIX - BYTE - JPI - Chaos Message-ID: <1991Apr10.063906.20540@iitmax.iit.edu> Date: 10 Apr 91 06:39:06 GMT References: <1991Apr8.205015.12217@aero.org> Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology / Academic Computing Center Lines: 38 In article <1991Apr8.205015.12217@aero.org>, jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes: > I would not go back to V1. For one who does development in one language, Modula-2, version 1 is adequate. Version 2, while it employs the expected extensions for OOP support, really gives Modula-2 programmers nothing new in terms of library support (and in particular class libraries). I believe object-oriented languages are almost totally uninteresting without some decent class libraries (or modules). In a previous message I advised OOP enthusiasts to examine the current debacle associated with the C++ standardization efforts. > As to the C'ness complaints I've seen leveled at the product--hogwash. > I'm not particularly enamored with C, but have not been tainted by > using JPI M2! Regarding libraries...If the intent is to build a > multi-lang. platform, then one will probably want to capitalize on > REUSE. The same debugger, the same code generator, the same or a > shared subset of core libraries. At the lowest levels > who cares if the same resources are shared by C and Modula-2?! Actually, I don't think anybody really cares, save a few purists who really could care less about "silly implementation details." Usually, these same people never get anything done. I would argue, based on language features, that it would not be sensible for all library functions to be sharable, which I must confess is purist in nature. It does not make any sense for a Modula-2 programmer to call the C printf function, because Modula-2 does not support variable arguments and weak-typing. I think JPI marred the languages by bludgeoning them into submission to such foolishness. This is perhaps the only point I would make against JPI's work, as they have been very innovative wrt their project system, common code generation, and the "plug-n-go" idea. -- George Thiruvathukal Laboratory for Parallel Computing and Languages Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago