Xref: utzoo comp.lang.pascal:1162 comp.lang.modula2:1103 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!mailrus!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ags From: ags@s.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Pascal dying out? Message-ID: <3609@s.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 25 Oct 88 22:42:31 GMT References: <267@lafcol.UUCP> <460@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <1284@buengc.BU.EDU> Reply-To: ags@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Seaman) Followup-To: comp.lang.modula2 Organization: Purdue University Lines: 36 In article <1284@buengc.BU.EDU> art@buengc.bu.edu (A. R. Thompson) writes: >Modula-II has some drawbacks. I haven't looked at it for a while, so what >follows is a bit shaky. MII defines a "word", a sixteen bit pattern of >bits. >This is unfortunate since in a very real sense it welds a bias >toward sixteen bit architectures into the language. I have crossposted to comp.lang.modula2 and redirected the followups to that group. First of all, MII does not define a "word". I believe the system module may define a word, but its size is implementation-defined. There is nothing in the MII language itself that is "biased" toward 16-bit architectures. >The biggest sin >MII commits is, however, its definition of "modules" inside of procedures. >This is unfortunate since it makes modules subject to the dynamic comings >and goings of procedures. [long tirade deleted] Only if you choose to do it that way. You can have modules inside procedures, or you can have procedures inside modules. You can even have both at once, if it pleases you. Actually, I believe the concept of "local modules" is being removed or already has been removed, though it was present in the last implementation of MII that I actually used. It seems that few people were making use of local modules. If all modules are required to be separate compilation units, then it is no longer possible to have modules inside procedures. Does that make you happy? -- Dave Seaman ags@j.cc.purdue.edu