Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: More on disgusting Modula-2...
Message-ID: <2645@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 17 Sep 88 13:42:44 GMT
References: <3417@crash.cts.com> <2113@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 31

In article <2113@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk>, rkl@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
> In article <3417@crash.cts.com>, haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes:
> >         What is wrong with using a simple function to concat your two
> > strings ?

> Well, if you have over 100 string concatenations in your program (as I often
> do in my major Pascal programs), then I'd far rather use + than concat.

Me, I much prefer using sprintf(). It's got '+' and concat() beaten hollow.
Anyone have a good reason for Wirth making it impossible to write sprintf()
in Modula-2?

But back to the subject... 100 string concatenations in a large program (using
what, a few thousand lines of code) isn't much overhead. You're sounding like
the people who argue that 'C' is better than Pascal because '{}' is shorter
than 'begin..end' ('C' has many advantages over Pascal, and I *do* think this
is one of them, but it's not a major one).

I'd much rather be using Modula myself, if it had a few things added:

	Static initialisation of large constants.
	Variable argument lists.
	A standard I/O library that included a decent selection of
		printf() type functions.
	Ability to use standard object files and compilation techniques.
		(yes, I know this would weaken its function parameter
		 checking... but it'd still be stronger than 'C's, which
		 would be a win for me).
-- 
		Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		 Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?