Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!dandelion!ulowell!ross
From: ross@swan.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Anyone seen a good Amiga Pascal lately ?  Why not Modula-2?
Message-ID: <5460@swan.ulowell.edu>
Date: 14 Mar 88 20:09:14 GMT
References: <2652@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: ross@swan.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller)
Organization: University of Lowell, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 32

In article <2652@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes:

... lots of religious (my compiler is better than yours deleted ).
>		I noticed you left out my references to Modula-2's seperate
>	compilation facilities.  This is feature C clearly cannot match.
>	Seperate compiliation in C requires programmer attention to a
>	tremendously higher degree than in Modula-2.  ALL my programs use
>	seperate compilation.  It's almost as easy as useing #include.


I can't let this stand.  I had the joy of taking a working 800 line C
program and porting it to a Modula-II.  Two weeks later, the C program
took 2 days to write, and 1200 lines I had it working in Modula-II.
Most of that time was spent with dealing with the seperate compilation
facilities.  In C you write your routine and link.  In M-II you need
definition and implementation modules.  This takes time to write and
is a pain.  Not to mention if you get a garbage Modula compiler and
it does things like truncates these module names to 12 characters, or
enforces that module names match file names.  Good compilers won't do
this, but the problem does exist in some.  
	Modula's seperate compilation facilities, or modules, rot.  They
are simple, but annoying and tedious.  I don't need to waste my time
on data protection for small projects that suit C well, and I will
use Ada if forced into an Algol upgrade that requires packages or
modules.

							Ross
-- 
csnet: ross@swan.ulowell.edu
uucp:  ross@swan.ulowell.edu || ...harvard!ulowell!ross

Trust the computer.	The computer is your friend.