Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hrcca.UUCP!bobc
From: bobc@hrcca.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Subject: Modula2
Message-ID: <KPETERSEN.12296145744.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 18:43:00 EST
Article-I.D.: SIMTEL20.KPETERSEN.12296145744.BABYL
Posted: Mon Apr 20 18:43:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Apr-87 06:17:09 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 35

Do you think Modula-2 will be a successful language in the Micro
world?  I recently purchased Turbo Modula-2 from Echelon, and have
mixed feelings about the language.  Although I don't think there is
any question that straight M2 is a better language than straight
Pascal, most M2 enhancements were already incorporated into Turbo
Pascal (and other successful implementations of Pascal I believe).
Indeed, I think that Wirth liked certain features of Turbo Pascal and
'C' language, borrowed them to rewrite Pascal, and named the result
Modula-2.

On the negative aspects of M2:

 1.  The explicit IMPORT of every identifier that I want to
     use drives me crazy.  It wouldn't be so bad if there
     were only 2 or 3 modules to import from, but there are
     so many!! I'll never complain about
     #include <stdio.h> again.

 2.  The lack of a general purpose output procedure (e.g.:
     Pascal's WRITE/WRITELN or C's printf() ) makes output
     routines a nightmare.  Using 4-5 procedure calls to
     write 1 line to the console is a pain.

 3.  Linking in entire modules rather than individual
     procedures (which I took the bother of identifying
     with IMPORTs) leads to large object code. This may
     just be a problem with Borland's linker though and not
     inherent to the language.

I would be interested in the comments that you or any of your
associates may have on this matter.

          Sincerely,

          Bob Kemp