Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!ma183say
From: ma183say@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Lee Fountain)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Language Wars (Was: Turbo Pascal Rumor)
Message-ID: <3865@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 12:37:09 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.3865
Posted: Mon Apr 20 12:37:09 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Apr-87 03:07:40 EST
References: <110@usafa.UUCP> <1614@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Reply-To: ma183say@sdcc3.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Lee Fountain)
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 53
Keywords: Modula, C, looks grim

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.

  Identical? Ha! (excuse me while I finish laughing).  Modula-2 is a
  strongly-typed language compared to C, which has implicit type
  transfer by the compiler.  Modula-2 does not have a preprocessor
  (which I think is neat) as does C. 
  From this chart I am looking at, C's language definition was
  released in ~1974, while Modula-2's was released in ~1980, so M2
  is the newer of the two.  The advantage to M2 is the Module
  construct.  It allows for data hiding and abstraction better than
  any other current method (except for Ada's Package, but who wants
  to discuss Ada?).  Now, we do have the C++ Class construct,
  borrowed from a 1967 language called Simula-67, which does allow a
  level of hiding (Hidden) and abstraction (Protected), and lends
  itself well to Object-Oriented programming.  But neither have we
  C++ nor Ada for the Amiga, so whatever suits your needs, suit it.

>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.

  It really annoys me to see such generic statements, please qualify
  your arguments in the future 8^&. 

>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.
>
>	<mike
>
  Again, C or Modula-2, you're still going to have to learn C if you
  are to program on the Amiga.
  (uh, yeah, but what about Lisp?  Well son, that's another story,
  now go to bed.)

  John
  7OHN