Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm From: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Language Wars (Was: Turbo Pascal Rumor) Message-ID: <3222@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Sun, 19-Apr-87 20:31:47 EST Article-I.D.: jade.3222 Posted: Sun Apr 19 20:31:47 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Apr-87 00:22:49 EST References: <110@usafa.UUCP> <1614@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 36 Keywords: Modula, C, looks grim In article <672@puff.WISC.EDU> upl@puff.WISC.EDU (Future Unix Gurus) writes about Modula 2: >I still recommend it to anybody who, like me, knows and despises C ! Well, I know and despise C, and I don't recommend switching Modula 2, because I despise it even more. Unless what you despise about C are the umpteen syntactic quirks, and ambiguities in the language definition (C: What it lacks in readability, it makes up for with ambiguity!), there's not much point in switching. Once you get past those (to a distance of about 4 feet :-), the two languages are identical, and suffer the same problems: 1) Typing is broken. In different ways, though. 2) Dynamic data structure extension isn't transparent. 3) Functions are second-class citizens. 4) Types are (at best) third-class citizens. 5) The languages aren't self-extensible. Many of these faults can be forgiven, if a language suffers from only a couple. But _all_ of them are deadly. They combine to make it painfull to go from an algorithm in my head to a running version. And that's what a language is supposed to be for. Like going out a buying a copy of Manx, there aren't enough different languages to choose from. And in this case, the differences are to small to make the change seem worthwhile. Especially since you really need a C compiler to deal with most of the PD software.