Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!uwvax!puff!upl
From: upl@puff.WISC.EDU (Future Unix Gurus)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Modula and C
Message-ID: <680@puff.WISC.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 14:37:26 EST
Article-I.D.: puff.680
Posted: Mon Apr 20 14:37:26 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Apr-87 03:02:38 EST
Distribution: comp
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 58


In article <3222@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>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.
The casting is a little quirky. Outside of that, I'm not sure I understand
your complaint. The typing is hard, with an attempt to allow circumvention.
Outside of the above mentioned quirks, I haven't had any complaints about
this. (Ofcourse, you have to LIKE hard typing, like I do.)
>	2) Dynamic data structure extension isn't transparent.

Non comprende, explain please?
>	3) Functions are second-class citizens.
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. Please describe rather
than generalizing.
>	4) Types are (at best) third-class citizens.
See above.
>	5) The languages aren't self-extensible.
>
What do you mean by "self-extensible"? I have built up quite a library of
higher level routines, organized into modules. Clearly this isn't what
you are talking about. What is?

>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.
>
Whaddya want, a DWIM statement?? :) :)
>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.
>
This assumes you want to modify the PD stuff. You can get executables
real easy in any moderate sized Amiga community.

All in all, I can't really answer your concerns, or even say I agree with
you, because I don't understand them. Some of them are stated to vaugely,
others seem to be because of my ignorance (I assume "self-extensible" is
language community jargon. We have TOO MUCH DAMN JARGON in our field
, not your fault- just a pet peeve of mine. Computer science would be
a much simpler, more efficient, and more fun discipline if all the
various sub-groups were taught a common language - like ENGLISH!)

Jeff Kesselman
uhura!captain@puff.cs.wisc.edu