Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:1233 comp.lang.modula2:698
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Re: From Modula to Oberon
Message-ID: <2368@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 15 Mar 88 17:00:22 GMT
References: <145@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <272@fang.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 14

In article <272@fang.ATT.COM> cbseeh@fang.ATT.COM (Edmund E Howland) writes:
>I might argue that Ada is a better language
>than Modula 2, simply because it has better concurancy primitives. But, if
>the application at hand had no use for these features, my argument would be 
>invalid. Indeed, Modula 2 would be the better choice since the implementation
>would be smaller, resulting in tighter code, and in the long run more 
>maintainable.

If your do not need any concurrency in your application, a smart Ada
compiler will generate code not containing any provision for
concurrency.  Therefore there is no reason to believe that the code
generated from the Modula-2 program will be smaller.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi