Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!mupsy!mucs!ian
From: ian@mucs.UX.CS.MAN.AC.UK (Ian Cottam)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Wirth's paper "From Modula to Oberon"
Message-ID: <3957@mucs.UX.CS.MAN.AC.UK>
Date: 24 May 88 14:31:32 GMT
References: <INFO-M2%88051808492544@DB0TUI11> <8805190033.AA01005@mckinley> <17453@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: ian@mucs.UUCP (Ian Cottam)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK
Lines: 33

In article <17453@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes:
>
>     Wirth writes:
>>In relying on evolution rather than revolution we remain in the
>>tradition of  a long development that led from Algol to
>>Pascal, then to Modula-2, and  eventually to Oberon. 
>
>     Wirth is rewriting history here.  Between Pascal and Modula 2 was
>Modula 1, or simply Modula, an embarassment he now calls "an experiment",
>but in its day was promoted as a successor to Pascal.
>					John Nagle

[Hello John, I think we met about 10 years ago when I was working on the]
[Modula-1 system at York that FACC wrote KSOS in.]

Whilst agreeing with most things John posts, I think he is being a little
hard on Wirth.  Having got my copy of "Modula: a language for modular
multiprogramming, SP&E, Vol 7, 3-35, 1977" off the shelf, I cannot see
(nor could I remember) any claim that Modula-1 was a successor to Pascal.
Some quotes:

	"... intended primarily for programming dedicated computer
	systems, including process control..."

	"...Modula is experimental. The presence or absence of certain
	facilities is still subject to controversy."

Perhaps you meant that someone else, other than Wirth, promoted it as a
successor to Pascal?

On days when I am wearing my hair-shirt, I look back on Modula-1 with some
affection!
ian@ux.cs.man.ac.uk