Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!VTVM1.BITNET!GRANGERG From: GRANGERG@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Granger) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: BIX - BYTE - JPI - Chaos Message-ID: Date: 15 Apr 91 18:07:17 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Modula2 List Organization: The Internet Lines: 58 Sorry I'm so late responding, lots going on ... On Mon, 8 Apr 91 20:50:15 GMT Larry M. Jordan said: >I must disagree with Mr. Pournelle's condemnation of JPI M2 V2 whose >... >4000 vs. 2000 (arb. example) LPM compilation rates. I never said (nor did Dr. Pournelle) that is didn't work (well I they did have a heap problem, but they fixed it). What was said is that the implementation was not true to the design philosophy of M2 or even in line with there version 1 compiler. I have no problem with a multi-lang platform, I like the idea, but it should be implemented is such a way that does _force _the _user _to _deal _with _the _details _of _the _other _languages, _like _the '_' _that _are _generated _by _C _compilers (see JPI's graphics lib). > >True (and unfortunately so) the system is poorly documented when >... >Let's hope V3 docs show the lesson learned. I think they have learned there lesson on docs. Better docs would have saved JPI and it's customers lots of trouble. > >I would not go back to V1. Hmmm, well I'm using V2, but am often temped to nuke it and put V1 back on the system. > >The OOP extension IMPO appears well integrated (I've implemented an OOP >extension to M2 myself and was pleased with what JPI had done). This >is still Modula-2. Well integrated, perhaps, but not well considered. Further, when using those extension, you leave M2, but I don't see any problem with that if portablity is not an issue. I still say is was a no-thought, "let's copy MS and Borland" move. > >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?! Reuse is good, IF the libraries have been designed from the start to support multi-languages and not just stolen from the most recent language offering. Same debugger and code generator are fine (and generally they did a fair job on both), but the libraries are C the main ones they took the time to wrap (increasing call overhead if you don't use C), other they just tell you to use '_' when calling. Generally, V2.0 gives me the feeling of a product rushed out the door (at $100.00 US a pop) about 2 months too early. Which is another gripe, at a time they decreased the quality they increased (tripled) the price. I understand (hope) they have reconsidered that. Greg