Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Modula2 on Encore (questions)
Message-ID: <1453@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 15 Feb 88 15:00:24 GMT
References: <8026@sunybcs.UUCP> <2562@encore.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 25

In article <2562@encore.UUCP>, soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper) writes:
> In article <8026@sunybcs.UUCP> kumard@sunybcs.UUCP (Deepak Kumar) writes:
> >	it does not have the standard set of library modules, instead
> >	we have the OSSI library with names begining with SIBlah.def
> >	etc. Does anybody have the standard interface? One can

> What standard set of library modules? There are many, many different sets of
> runtimes for M2 systems.

Bingo. I admire Modula-2, but I'm going to keep using 'C' until such time as
this situation changes.

I can write portable 'C' programs that do a reasonably efficient job at system
level utilities, and can be recompiled without change on a variety of systems.
I don't know of any other language for which that's true. Perhaps if some of
you Modula hotshots got together and rammed a non-proprietary standard library
(that at least provided the equivalent of the 'C' stdio library) through,
Modula would become a real alternative for people who need to work on more
than one processor/compiler pair.

(Perhaps you could co-ordinate with Henry Spencer on his UNIX libraries
project...)
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.