modula2 and Oberon2

[Tom]

"NB" == "Norman Black" writes:

you say it, that's iso M2 or M3 something, not Wirth's Modula-2.


NB> Nobody has mentioned it but M2 has object oriented language
NB> features (CLASS type, referenced based object) and also generic
NB> modules (sort of like Ada generics). These were additions to the
NB> original first ISO M2 standard.
NB>
NB> --
NB> Norman Black
NB> Stony Brook Software
NB>
NB> "Ondrej Hrabal" <***@wo.cz> wrote in message
NB> news:***@posting.google.com...
NB> > ***@yahoo.com (Deepabh Telang) wrote in message
NB> news:<***@posting.google.com>...
NB> > > Hi,
NB> > > many time i came accross these two names together. what are the
NB> > > differeces and similarities between the two languages?
NB> > >
NB> > > deepabh telang
NB> >
NB> > Oberon is a descendant of Modula-2 and Oberon-2 is a refinement of
NB> > Oberon. They are all strongly typed, have a high-level module system
NB> > (unlike C and C++), systematic definition of data types and control
NB> > constructs, and really beautiful syntax (e. g. compare
NB> > IF/ELSIF/ELSE/END to C and Pascal equivalents).
NB> >
NB> > Compared to Modula-2, Oberon added the following features:
NB> >
NB> > -Type extension (or inheritance) that allows the reuse of type
NB> > definitions. It also inherently adds polymorphism to the language,
NB> > thus allowing extensive code reuse.
NB> > -Run-time type introspection with the IS operator and WITH statement.
NB> >
NB> > On the other hand, some Modula-2 features were removed in the interest
NB> > of simplicity:
NB> > -Constrained (subrange) types
NB> > -Enumeration types (it's a pity, I think)
NB> > -Nested modules
NB> > -Use of record fields and module's exported identifiers without the
NB> > full path
NB> > -FOR statement, reintroduced in Oberon-2
NB> >
NB> > Oberon-2 added type-bound procedures to implement objects' methods,
NB> > while the original Oberon relied on procedure variables.
NB> > The most recent refinement of Oberon-2 is called Component Pascal, but
NB> > there are also other dialects.
NB> >
NB> > Ondrej
NB>

[Vladimir Los]

Hi!

What is it for? I can see messages few days only. It seems that some
messages appear from nowhere (it is not clear what question they are for...
:o))) )
Concerning subj I can say - I use Black Box & Component Pascal
(www.oberon.ch) and I am going to use Bluebottle (ex AOS) operating system.
Most interesting things (as it is happend always) go from Zurich but the
most part of programmers keep holding Clike language famaly like wetnurse's
tit... :o)

Not long ago I have read Matthew
9:16 No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, because the
patch will pull away from the garment and the tear will be worse.
9:17 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the skins will
burst and the wine will pour out and the skins will be destroyed. Instead
they put new wine into new wineskins and both are preserved."

May be it is not for subj, but what we can see in case of C++'s design and
evolution? Bjarn writes in his book many interesting thing about how the
language was created and developed. Enforcements of Bjarn himself and "crew"
are very impress. But one our (russian) humorist Fomenko said : "Mice cried,
stung, picked, sweared but proceeded to devour a cactus"...
C compatibility pulled many other problems. This languages absolutly UN- fit
to/for, suitable for, good for teaching programming. Nonspecialists in IT
(thier questions about C++ syntax and op. semantics) become headache for
programmers and system administrators...

Bjarn talk about component technology... How can he propose for this target
language ABSOLUTELY nonsupporting proper features?

--
Non sibi!
Wlad [UR3LOS]

Post by Tom
you say it, that's iso M2 or M3 something, not Wirth's Modula-2.
NB> Nobody has mentioned it but M2 has object oriented language
NB> features (CLASS type, referenced based object) and also generic
NB> modules (sort of like Ada generics). These were additions to the
NB> original first ISO M2 standard.
NB>
NB> --
NB> Norman Black
NB> Stony Brook Software
NB>
NB> > > Hi,
NB> > > many time i came accross these two names together. what are the
NB> > > differeces and similarities between the two languages?
NB> > >
NB> > > deepabh telang
NB> >
NB> > Oberon is a descendant of Modula-2 and Oberon-2 is a refinement of
NB> > Oberon. They are all strongly typed, have a high-level module system
NB> > (unlike C and C++), systematic definition of data types and control
NB> > constructs, and really beautiful syntax (e. g. compare
NB> > IF/ELSIF/ELSE/END to C and Pascal equivalents).
NB> >
NB> >
NB> > -Type extension (or inheritance) that allows the reuse of type
NB> > definitions. It also inherently adds polymorphism to the language,
NB> > thus allowing extensive code reuse.
NB> > -Run-time type introspection with the IS operator and WITH statement.
NB> >
NB> > On the other hand, some Modula-2 features were removed in the interest
NB> > -Constrained (subrange) types
NB> > -Enumeration types (it's a pity, I think)
NB> > -Nested modules
NB> > -Use of record fields and module's exported identifiers without the
NB> > full path
NB> > -FOR statement, reintroduced in Oberon-2
NB> >
NB> > Oberon-2 added type-bound procedures to implement objects' methods,
NB> > while the original Oberon relied on procedure variables.
NB> > The most recent refinement of Oberon-2 is called Component Pascal, but
NB> > there are also other dialects.
NB> >
NB> > Ondrej
NB>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Vladimir Los
Not long ago I have read Matthew
9:16 No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, because the
patch will pull away from the garment and the tear will be worse.
9:17 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the skins will
burst and the wine will pour out and the skins will be destroyed. Instead
they put new wine into new wineskins and both are preserved."

Thank you! That's the best explanation of why you shouldn't use C++
that I have ever read.

Of course, back in Matthew's day they were still using something
like RPG.

[Vladimir Los]

Post by Peter Moylan
Thank you! That's the best explanation of why you shouldn't use C++
that I have ever read.
Of course, back in Matthew's day they were still using something
like RPG.

What really very amazes me in western peaple is "rigidity"
(straightforwardness ?) of their thinking. Somebody says you about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and you like a flock of sheep obediently go
where you was ordered. Where even any track of these weapons? Now it is
ascertained that "president was misleaded"... And what?
In the case of language development we have language representing itself
heap of unsystematic features based on a very unsafe ancestor. (I will not
talk about these things - you can find out a great deal of articles devoted
C++ critique).
I refered to Bjarn's "Design and evolution of C++". Whole book looks like a
voucher why they took such decisions concerning C++ design. There are MANY
words. But all these words simply explain us what halppend after author
decided to base new language on C. In many places Bjarn complains about this
decision, shows how many "perversions" appeared in the language due to this
decision, but continues to sing the praises of C++ (but, in the final
analysis, of himself).
It is very interesting (and symptomatic :o) ) that Wirth's name not appeared
in the book at any place. I think Pascal itself means something about
1969-1973 (the situation is the same as in one of the Unix's authors article
"Why I don't like Pascal". The article was written in the beginning
(middle?) of 80ths but the author "prepsred" kind of Pascal from beginning
of 70ths.) Similarly about Modula and other languages.

I appologize for my English. I cannot express all my ideas about this book
and the language. All these years of C++ existance I'm astonish (surprised)
by that perseverance(?) of programmers which do not want to read classical
theoretical works but fall under influence of cheap "treacks" and
advertisement. Know we have the culture of "piece (chunk ?) decisions". And
I don't mean "component"! C++ (as a programming language and the language of
system design) hasn't even one feature to express component programming.

--

Non sibi!
Wlad [UR3LOS]

[Izo]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:56:52 +0300, "Vladimir Los"

Post by Vladimir Los
What really very amazes me in western peaple is "rigidity"
(straightforwardness ?) of their thinking. Somebody says you about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and you like a flock of sheep obediently go
where you was ordered. Where even any track of these weapons? Now it is
ascertained that "president was misleaded"... And what?

What really amazes me is the irony of someone from Ukraine (former
Soviet Union, current economic disaster and political fraud/voter
apathy wonderland) feeling he has the right to lecture any one about
being like a "flock of sheep".
Kuchma and his thugs still in charge? Voters done anything about the
massive fraud? No? Comical.

Dear Kenneth !

Can you see now why M2 in all of its reincarnations has been extinct ?
Three (add or take one) of us in the whole world are still using M2 and
even these are quarelling like women on the market ! BTW - eastern and
asian programmers and system engineers are proven as better than western
so leave Vladimir alone - he may take your job from you some day! Only
one of proofs (from M2 world) is XDS.

Instead of spitting on each other and in the spirit of the GPL and OS
please do me a favor and do following things:

1. M2 / Oberon within GNU GCC compiler tree
2. Standardize the format of the symbol file and make compiler for the
C/C++/C# headers and ADA and M3 definition files and for some/many other
languages too to make us real system engineers and SW integrators use
theese directly in M2/Oberon and not writing all definitions from the
scratch and every time we get 3rd party lib.
3. Make M2/Oberon IDE and integrate it with M$ VS.NET's IDE and with the
Gideon/KDevelop-3 IDE.
4. Maybe make also some other things to make the mixed-language
development possible and easy.
5. All these with the GPL !

X. I would immediately join the project and help as much as possible.


I sincerely believe that this would increase the number of M2/Oberon
users by at least following three, add or take one. Maybe even more ....
who knows, maybe C/C++/C# camp will move to the M2 camp with these tools ?

Stick to programming languages; your politics lack credibility.

Same to you, Kenneth !

Regards !

[Tim Teulings]

Hallo!

Post by Izo
1. M2 / Oberon within GNU GCC compiler tree
2. Standardize the format of the symbol file and make compiler for the
C/C++/C# headers and ADA and M3 definition files and for some/many other
languages too to make us real system engineers and SW integrators use
theese directly in M2/Oberon and not writing all definitions from the
scratch and every time we get 3rd party lib.
3. Make M2/Oberon IDE and integrate it with M$ VS.NET's IDE and with the
Gideon/KDevelop-3 IDE.
4. Maybe make also some other things to make the mixed-language
development possible and easy.
5. All these with the GPL !
X. I would immediately join the project and help as much as possible.

ooc and VisualOberon are (first?) step into that direction. They are
based on gcc (generating C and using gcc as compiler backend), they do
work on all major plattforms and OSs (Windows, Mac, Unix). They allow
interface to C libraries (and using C wrappers for C++ code also
interfacing to C++). ooc has some code for integration into the emacs
development IDE ;-) Libraries are under GPL and even LGPL!

ooc has recently taken major step by increasing performance, stability
and usebility. VisualOberon (in CVS) now has working ports for X11,
Windows, Mac OS X and even Curses (in order of solved integration).
Both are activly maintained.

http://ooc.sourceforge.net
http://visualoberon.sourceforge.net

Your are welcomed!

--
Gruß...
Tim.

[Marco van de Voort]

Post by Izo
Instead of spitting on each other and in the spirit of the GPL and OS

And why not in the spirit of OS and BSDlicense?

Post by Izo
1. M2 / Oberon within GNU GCC compiler tree
2. Standardize the format of the symbol file and make compiler for the
C/C++/C# headers and ADA and M3 definition files and for some/many other
languages too to make us real system engineers and SW integrators use
theese directly in M2/Oberon and not writing all definitions from the
scratch and every time we get 3rd party lib.

Translating C<x> headers to M2 might prove very difficult. I already tried
for the pascal case.

Post by Izo
5. All these with the GPL !

Why?

Post by Izo
X. I would immediately join the project and help as much as possible.
I sincerely believe that this would increase the number of M2/Oberon
users by at least following three, add or take one. Maybe even more ....
who knows, maybe C/C++/C# camp will move to the M2 camp with these tools ?

They won't. However you might keep some of the people that currently use
these languages.

[Izo]

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
Instead of spitting on each other and in the spirit of the GPL and OS

And why not in the spirit of OS and BSDlicense?

Post by Izo
1. M2 / Oberon within GNU GCC compiler tree
2. Standardize the format of the symbol file and make compiler for the
C/C++/C# headers and ADA and M3 definition files and for some/many other
languages too to make us real system engineers and SW integrators use
theese directly in M2/Oberon and not writing all definitions from the
scratch and every time we get 3rd party lib.

Translating C<x> headers to M2 might prove very difficult. I already tried
for the pascal case.

Yes - the C's -I<include path> option and possible paths within #include
<> should maybe be considered as parts of the module name. Still better
than nothing. And the STL would be even bigger problem. But - as any
given problem on this world has been and will be solved, some smart head
could prove genius and give the right idea.

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
5. All these with the GPL !

Why?

Since we (M2 people) all know that the productivity with the Modula-2
and its descendents is higher as with C family, the first step is to get
some real .NET application (in B2B, e.g.) developers from .NET camp -
yet the try should be painless and costless because they already have
bought C based tools. .NET framework and gcc are free so the GPL'd tool
would attract youngsters who would consequently influent their future
companies' develpment phylosphy.

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
X. I would immediately join the project and help as much as possible.
I sincerely believe that this would increase the number of M2/Oberon
users by at least following three, add or take one. Maybe even more ....
who knows, maybe C/C++/C# camp will move to the M2 camp with these tools ?

They won't. However you might keep some of the people that currently use
these languages.

So the C people are stupid or what ? Offer the man the tool with smooth
migration and easy use of his former and recent work and more - real
(not only so-called) RAD tool (which M2/O are by themselves) since
debugging is less and code is easyer bugfree with M2/O. He will earn
more on development time shortening !

Try - don't quarrel !

Iztok

[Marco van de Voort]

Post by Izo

Post by Marco van de Voort
Translating C<x> headers to M2 might prove very difficult. I already tried
for the pascal case.

Yes - the C's -I<include path> option and possible paths within #include
should maybe be considered as parts of the module name. Still better
than nothing. And the STL would be even bigger problem. But - as any
given problem on this world has been and will be solved, some smart head
could prove genius and give the right idea.

I was more thinking about simple headers. Even these have problems enough,
don't worry. You don't even need the STL.

Post by Izo

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
5. All these with the GPL !

Why?

Since we (M2 people) all know that the productivity with the Modula-2
and its descendents is higher as with C family, the first step is to get
some real .NET application (in B2B, e.g.) developers from .NET camp -
yet the try should be painless and costless because they already have
bought C based tools.

Beside the point.

Post by Izo
.NET framework and gcc are free so the GPL'd tool

.NET is not free. There is a reference implementation (Rotor) free, but
it is BSD licensed, not GPL.

And for gcc/libc are you sure you don't mean GPL/LGPL mixture?

Post by Izo
would attract youngsters who would consequently influent their future
companies' develpment phylosphy.

That doesn't answer the question why GPL. That answers the question "why free?"

Post by Izo

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
I sincerely believe that this would increase the number of M2/Oberon
users by at least following three, add or take one. Maybe even more ....
who knows, maybe C/C++/C# camp will move to the M2 camp with these tools ?

They won't. However you might keep some of the people that currently use
these languages.

So the C people are stupid or what ?

No.

Post by Izo
Offer the man the tool with smooth migration and easy use of his former
and recent work and more

And he'll say he'll go with what the crowd is using. I don't like that
either, but FPC already has this for Pascal (RAD is getting online, usuable
for *nxi, multi platform and architecture compiler, runtime library and
auxiliry libraries, C support all GPL/LGPL, and I haven't seen the C crowd
defect in droves to support us)

Post by Izo
- real (not only so-called) RAD tool (which M2/O are by themselves) since
debugging is less and code is easyer bugfree with M2/O. He will earn more
on development time shortening !

His manager will not allow him :_)

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Post by Izo

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
Instead of spitting on each other and in the spirit of the GPL and OS

And why not in the spirit of OS and BSDlicense?

Post by Izo
1. M2 / Oberon within GNU GCC compiler tree
2. Standardize the format of the symbol file and make compiler for the
C/C++/C# headers and ADA and M3 definition files and for some/many other
languages too to make us real system engineers and SW integrators use
theese directly in M2/Oberon and not writing all definitions from the
scratch and every time we get 3rd party lib.

Heh,inter-language-lib-file......
and all we will got:
standard C lib with some features needed for C.
All languages becomes more and more C - like when integrated with C.

Post by Izo

Post by Marco van de Voort
Translating C<x> headers to M2 might prove very difficult. I already tried
for the pascal case.

Yes - the C's -I<include path> option and possible paths within #include
<> should maybe be considered as parts of the module name. Still better
than nothing. And the STL would be even bigger problem. But - as any
given problem on this world has been and will be solved, some smart head
could prove genius and give the right idea.

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
5. All these with the GPL !

Why?

Since we (M2 people) all know that the productivity with the Modula-2
and its descendents is higher as with C family, the first step is to get
some real .NET application (in B2B, e.g.) developers from .NET camp -
yet the try should be painless and costless because they already have
bought C based tools. .NET framework and gcc are free so the GPL'd tool
would attract youngsters who would consequently influent their future
companies' develpment phylosphy.

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Izo
X. I would immediately join the project and help as much as possible.
I sincerely believe that this would increase the number of M2/Oberon
users by at least following three, add or take one. Maybe even more ....
who knows, maybe C/C++/C# camp will move to the M2 camp with these tools ?

They won't. However you might keep some of the people that currently use
these languages.

So the C people are stupid or what ?

heh,one C<x> programmer said:What's,pascal programmers are stupid or
what?

Post by Izo
Offer the man the tool with smooth
migration and easy use of his former and recent work and more - real
(not only so-called) RAD tool (which M2/O are by themselves) since
debugging is less and code is easyer bugfree with M2/O. He will earn
more on development time shortening !
Try - don't quarrel !
Iztok

And result of all this actions you're propose:
All languages except C<x> will be slave and somply newer win in battle
with C<x> ....

[Bored With The Bitch]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:48:12 +0200, Izo <***@siol.net> wrote:



[===]

Post by Izo
Since we (M2 people) all know that the productivity with the Modula-2
and its descendents is higher as with C family, the first step is to get
some real .NET application (in B2B, e.g.) developers from .NET camp -
yet the try should be painless and costless because they already have
bought C based tools. .NET framework and gcc are free so the GPL'd tool
would attract youngsters who would consequently influent their future
companies' develpment phylosphy.

[and]

Post by Izo
So the C people are stupid or what ? Offer the man the tool with smooth
migration and easy use of his former and recent work and more - real
(not only so-called) RAD tool (which M2/O are by themselves) since
debugging is less and code is easyer bugfree with M2/O. He will earn
more on development time shortening !
Try - don't quarrel !
Iztok

If we stop thinking of C (or Modula or Oberon) as languages and think of them
as -ideas- instead, we learn the following:

[1] The first idea to hit the market gains the majority of mindshare. C was
such an idea, and it has been used for some 30 years already. There is lots
of fine code out there written in C and a lot of shit code too. C is widely
taught in university, and sometimes at the secondary school level as well.
Modula and Oberon are not. Maybe at ETH, but I don't know where else.

[2] Once an idea gains mindshare, it is hard to displace. People become
comfortable with the established way of doing and thinking about things. It
is hard for someone who has become comfortable with doing things and thinking
about things a certain way to "shift gears". Like, say, a C programmer to
abandon tools which he is intimately acquainted with in favour of something
new and different. It does not matter if languages like Modula or Oberon are
superior.

[3] People who explore other languages like Modula and Oberon are fascinated
by new ideas and ways of doing things, and represent (in my mind anyway) the
higher end of the intelligence and curiousity scale. They also tend to
self-select in that they explore and use these things on thier own, without
goading. So are people who invent new languages, like Prof. Wirth.

[4] New ideas have an uphill battle when it comes to displacing old ideas. It
is truly said that new ideas do not win by virtue of thier superiority, but
rather that thier opponents tend to die off.

[5] So ultimately, we are not dealing with stupidity per se, but simple human
inertia.






Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
======

[Marco van de Voort]

Post by Bored With The Bitch

Iztok

If we stop thinking of C (or Modula or Oberon) as languages and think of them
[1] The first idea to hit the market gains the majority of mindshare. C was
such an idea, and it has been used for some 30 years already. There is lots
of fine code out there written in C and a lot of shit code too. C is widely
taught in university, and sometimes at the secondary school level as well.
Modula and Oberon are not. Maybe at ETH, but I don't know where else.

Then it would be Pascal not C, a Wirthian language and direct Modula2
predecessor even. It's older than C, and had a finest hour during the
eighties and early nineties. Delphi usage alone probably still dwarfs the
combined usage of all other Wirthian languages.

However C/Objective C/C++ (and in the future maybe C#) together dwarf
Pascal including Delphi.

Why is this? One, and one reason only. C originally got tied to OS
development (it was developped because of it) and that stuck. Therefore,
it usually was the first compiler on a certain platform, had a lot of
high performance tools available.

C probably got multiple chances to make it this way. Plain C used to be
fading into the embedded realm, but the Open Source realm also adopted it en
masse, so even that one isn't really dying.

Post by Bored With The Bitch
[2] Once an idea gains mindshare, it is hard to displace. People become
comfortable with the established way of doing and thinking about things.
It is hard for someone who has become comfortable with doing things and
thinking about things a certain way to "shift gears". Like, say, a C
programmer to abandon tools which he is intimately acquainted with in
favour of something new and different. It does not matter if languages
like Modula or Oberon are superior.

Superior is indeed more than language. It is speed, tools, sourcecode on the
net, and easy interfacing with each and every application (preferably without
making your own headers), and howling with the IT fashion at every moment.

However more and more elaborate features don't automatically make a language
superior. The features must improve the programmer's quality of life.

IOW simplicity can be a factor too.

Post by Bored With The Bitch
[3] People who explore other languages like Modula and Oberon are
fascinated by new ideas and ways of doing things, and represent (in my
mind anyway) the higher end of the intelligence and curiousity scale. They
also tend to self-select in that they explore and use these things on
thier own, without goading. So are people who invent new languages, like
Prof. Wirth.

I do. I float somewhere in the middle between the Borland dialects and
Modula2 ;-)

Post by Bored With The Bitch
[4] New ideas have an uphill battle when it comes to displacing old ideas.
It is truly said that new ideas do not win by virtue of thier superiority,
but rather that thier opponents tend to die off.

I think a stronghold or niche can be really important too. A homeland from
which you can rise as a phoenix.

[Marco van de Voort]

Post by Vladimir Los
development
$$ and marketing $$ go.
C# is the new fashion derivative, but more competes with Java.
- jg

I'm is a Pascal/Delphi programmer,but i don't like some things in
Delphi(and many other OO languages) (but i dislike C++ even more).
FirstParam.Procedure(SecondParam,....);
(so called "OO")
There we have no comatible way to extend language to full polymorphism.
Procedure(FirstParam,SecondParam,....);

I don't see a difference. Y

(note that this way wasn't used mainly because "OO is a point between
method and procedure,as for field in record")
language may be extended from standard procedures to OO where actual
code to be called depend to first param,and to more polymorphism where
call depend to all paramethers.

???

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Vladimir Los
development
$$ and marketing $$ go.
C# is the new fashion derivative, but more competes with Java.
- jg

I'm is a Pascal/Delphi programmer,but i don't like some things in
Delphi(and many other OO languages) (but i dislike C++ even more).
FirstParam.Procedure(SecondParam,....);
(so called "OO")
There we have no comatible way to extend language to full polymorphism.
Procedure(FirstParam,SecondParam,....);

I don't see a difference. Y

if form
Procedure(FirstParam,SecondParam,....);
are used("instead of"FirstParam.Procedure(SecondParam,....);),
after some design changes(like those borland does everytime) ,
compiler/runtime can select right code accordingly(right word?) to more
than one paramether(no problem with parser/BNF,compatibility).

with "." we can write only one param as "code selector".With normal
(,,),we can write many.

"Standard OO approarch" is when code selected accordingly to only one
paramether(and there "." shows it) , and here language depend to way how
code are selected:via one procedural variable. So language is depend to
implementation.
Some OO's(" messages") select right code via if/case selection,and in
these models there is no problem to select right code for all
paramethers except problem with these ".".

"." look like std pascal OO where code selected via pointer :
SomeClass^.VMTP^.Procedure(SomeClass,Another Class,....);
,but there was good old "hook" OO too.(where child "hooks" pointers,and
uses "if" to go to parents)

I simply don't understand why almost all imperative langs use this "."
,if it's bad and certanly not better than "(,,,)".

Post by Marco van de Voort

(note that this way wasn't used mainly because "OO is a point between
method and procedure,as for field in record")
language may be extended from standard procedures to OO where actual
code to be called depend to first param,and to more polymorphism where
call depend to all paramethers.

???

[Marco van de Voort]

Post by Dmytry Lavrov

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Vladimir Los
development
- jg

I'm is a Pascal/Delphi programmer,but i don't like some things in
Delphi(and many other OO languages) (but i dislike C++ even more).
FirstParam.Procedure(SecondParam,....);
(so called "OO")
There we have no comatible way to extend language to full polymorphism.
Procedure(FirstParam,SecondParam,....);

I don't see a difference. Y

if form
Procedure(FirstParam,SecondParam,....);
are used("instead of"FirstParam.Procedure(SecondParam,....);),
after some design changes(like those borland does everytime) ,

We are in Modula2 and Oberon groups here. Cheap hacks at Borland don't gain the
same amount of points as in comp.lang.pascal.* groups.

Post by Dmytry Lavrov
compiler/runtime can select right code accordingly(right word?) to more
than one paramether(no problem with parser/BNF,compatibility).

I still have no idea what you actually mean, but I'll try.

Maybe, but what about the normal parameters? That syntax is already taken.

Post by Dmytry Lavrov
with "." we can write only one param as "code selector".With normal
(,,),we can write many.

Even _if_ so, what is the real meaning of the multiple object "code selector"s?

Post by Dmytry Lavrov
"Standard OO approarch" is when code selected accordingly to only one
paramether(and there "." shows it) , and here language depend to way how
code are selected:via one procedural variable. So language is depend to
implementation.

Why? The part before the point is just a namespace. There are no implementation
dependant parts fixed by this.

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Dmytry Lavrov

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Vladimir Los
development
- jg

I'm is a Pascal/Delphi programmer,but i don't like some things in
Delphi(and many other OO languages) (but i dislike C++ even more).
FirstParam.Procedure(SecondParam,....);
(so called "OO")
There we have no comatible way to extend language to full polymorphism.
Procedure(FirstParam,SecondParam,....);

I don't see a difference. Y

if form
Procedure(FirstParam,SecondParam,....);
are used("instead of"FirstParam.Procedure(SecondParam,....);),
after some design changes(like those borland does everytime) ,

We are in Modula2 and Oberon groups here. Cheap hacks at Borland don't gain the
same amount of points as in comp.lang.pascal.* groups.

Oberon also have this "." Borland delphi is only for example.

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Dmytry Lavrov
compiler/runtime can select right code accordingly(right word?) to more
than one paramether(no problem with parser/BNF,compatibility).

I still have no idea what you actually mean, but I'll try.
Maybe, but what about the normal parameters? That syntax is already taken.

Post by Dmytry Lavrov
with "." we can write only one param as "code selector".With normal
(,,),we can write many.

Even _if_ so, what is the real meaning of the multiple object "code selector"s?

Heh,you're wrote some examples of this selection(in comp.lang.pascal).
Where to summ different types(ex. reals,complex,etc)
you are need "case param1.id+param2.id shl ....... of"
to select right code accordingly to more than one paramether.It's
impossible with one procedural variable.Language depend to this
limitation.


Why it's so hard to explain?
I have troubles explaining to friend newer programmed in OO why code to
be executed depend to ONLY ONE paramether!(i said,because there is a
call to code by procedural variable.When i tried to explain that it's
implementation independent,alternation(IF) also can be,and was,
used....)
I also had problems understanding,why only for one paramether when code
selected with IF instead of call.
mainly because FOR ME,self object IS ONLY paramether.But code to be
executed depend to this paramether.

Post by Marco van de Voort

Post by Dmytry Lavrov
"Standard OO approarch" is when code selected accordingly to only one
paramether(and there "." shows it) , and here language depend to way how
code are selected:via one procedural variable. So language is depend to
implementation.

Why? The part before the point is just a namespace. There are no implementation
dependant parts fixed by this.

And it's only _one_ namespace.

In way where code selected with IF (jc,jnc,..."alternative"(right
word?)), like in "messages",there is no problem to call right code for
_more_than_one_ param(and we only need more than one namespace and some
small changes).Like in example above.
Of course,with "messages",there also code to be executed MAY depend to
only one paramether.
So it's "implementation independent"- can be done as well with IF as
with procedural variable.
But limitation come from procedural variable - based OO.


Like if language Xlang have only maximum one loop,max one
procedure,max.one if,...
because it's limitation of command tape for old sosige making mashine.
And Xlang have some "hacks" against all limitations.
so Xlang is more implementation independent.....

[Vladimir Los]

What really amazes me is the irony of someone from Ukraine (former
Soviet Union, current economic disaster and political fraud/voter
apathy wonderland) feeling he has the right to lecture any one about
being like a "flock of sheep".

I can lecture about the history of this part of World and what it done for
West prosperity. I can begin (for example) from two russian squadrons sent
to help North in it's fight from South and to eliminate possible blockade
from Europian states' fleets. About russian help during that war. About
volunteers in each sides (each of them understood TRUTH in his/her own way).
I can talk about role of "outpost" of the West during WWI and ESPECIALLY
WWII.

Of course you can point to today state of art in our countries. But if we
want to realize WHY today is so as we have we MUST examine our history.

Our westernized politician siad that PERESTROYKA will build the society of
democracy and prosperity. Of course we had many difficulties during those
years. But now we can see that those difficulties were NOTHING comparing to
today's ones. I can say more: those things existed not due to structure of
socialist society but due to the retreat of our leadership from those
principles. And don't frighten us so called "Stalin repressions".
Solzhenitsin, Novodvorskaya, Sakharov, Khakamada are(were) just mouthpieces
of those forces inside our country which wanted to catch our national
economy.

What have we lost?

- Free medicine (in all forms). Now it is declarated that medicine is free
but the prices of drugs so high that peoples die.

- Free education. The practice of "buying exams" is expanded everywhere -
legal or not. Level of high school education is falling down. When I entered
to Kharkov Aviation Institute we had 1.5 week course to repeat school course
of mathematical analysis. Now lecturers have to spend up to year to teach
these students basics.
I remember how I was amizing how american 22year old students coudn't
multyply negative numbers. Now I am amizing of ours. Entering to a
university now is a circus and rice with difficulties. For parents of kids.
When I returned from Army I didn't worry about what university or institute
I want to pass exams. If I didn't pass exams in one I could do it in another
(or on other year). It was free.

- Financial independence. I mean personally. During Soviet power I could go
where I want (of course war and secrets objects existed but what country
hasn't them?). Yes, I couldn't go to capitalist states or with greate
difficulties. But what did I forget there?

- Confidance in the future. W. Churchill said "Stalin got a country having
plough and leaved it having A-bomb". Of course Russia (at least last three
centuries) was permanently as a second role actor. But we must ask why. It
is very difficult question because of unclear history and because this
history was written by non-russian historians.

We launched space craft. Now most of specialist sells something in city
markets.

During last 15 years all politicians who declared themselves as
"westernized" bring misfortune to our countries. All bad things which
ordinary people can see they associate to "democracy arrival". What reaction
do you expect to see when chechenian terrorists are received as guests in
westrn countries. And again when you talk about so called "horror of war and
war crimes of russian army in chechnya" why do not you ask yourself what was
before? Do you know what was happening in Northern Caucas in 1985-1993?
About railway robbery (this is hundreds of trains), about raped and killed
russian women (ten thousands), killed young men? But you dont want hear
about this. Ohhhh those bad russians! And nothing alse. These bad russians
saved world from fascists for four years while america played in war on
pacific islends. You threw down two A-bomb on two paceful cities (just for
experiments and frightening) and declared that exactly america won the WWII.
But dont you ask what was in China and Gobi for two months before. How many
japs fought against ams in pacific and how much japs was concentrated near
soviet border? Very interesting? But more interesting I can talk about Arden
operation and how Chuchil and Rosevelt pray for Stalin help them and speed
up russian offensive to Germany. We spend many lifes for this but saved your
generals from a pocket. You can say about lend-lease during WWII from West
for Soviet Union. Oh yes those 3% of all arms very helped us. Thank you very
much. We paid off by gold during post-war difficult years.

There sre yet so meny interesting thing.
For example Federal Reserve System. What and whose money was put on it's
foundation...
For example who was the author of picture of the dollar...
For example who was the most famous TV inventor in america. And by whose
helicopters american president flies. And where from you got the formula of
fuel to fly to the moon.
For example prisons of US. Now you have more prisoners a year than we during
all years of so called "repressions".
For example about criminal situations in our countries before "perestroyka"
and now.
For example about the spread of tuberculosis. Wrldwide health organozation
said that Soviet Union will say "good bye" to tuberculosis near 2002 and
never meet any human with tuberculosis at it own territory. Now we have evry
tenth diseased.
For example about population growth. Now we lose more people every year than
in WWII. We die out due to our "westernized" politicians and "democratized"
institutes.

Kuchma and his thugs still in charge? Voters done anything about the
massive fraud? No? Comical.

Thank you for YOUR Kuchma. Exectly he constantly mutters in TVboxes about
western choice of Ukraine. Exectly he "knoks together" two sister nations -
russians and ukrainians. YOU MUST REALIZE ONE IDEA CONCERNING OUR COUNTRIES
(almost all exUSSR countries): IF YOU HEAR FROM SOMEBODY THAT HE/SHE IS A
DEMOCRAT AND HE/SHE FOR WESTERN WAY OF DEVELOPMENT - YOU CAN HAVE 101% OF
ASSURANCE THAT THIS MAN/WOMAN IS/WAS A THIEF IN OUR COUNTRIES.

Stick to programming languages; your politics lack credibility.

Allow me to decide these thing by my own mind.

Appologize for my rEnglish.

Non sibi!
Wlad [UR3LOS]

[Dmytry Lavrov]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:56:52 +0300, "Vladimir Los"

Post by Vladimir Los
What really very amazes me in western peaple is "rigidity"
(straightforwardness ?) of their thinking. Somebody says you about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and you like a flock of sheep obediently go
where you was ordered. Where even any track of these weapons? Now it is
ascertained that "president was misleaded"... And what?

What really amazes me is the irony of someone from Ukraine (former
Soviet Union, current economic disaster and political fraud/voter
apathy wonderland) feeling he has the right to lecture any one about
being like a "flock of sheep".
Kuchma and his thugs still in charge? Voters done anything about the
massive fraud? No? Comical.
Stick to programming languages; your politics lack credibility.

You are right,and Wlad are right.

IMO xUSSR politicans are stupid. USA politicans are stupid too.All
politicans are stupid,anywhere,and it's inpossible to do something about
it - it's normal situation.

But in USA peoples have guns - only guns creates democraty(and destroys
it),
and in democratic countries politics can't do so stupid things with
peoples as in xussr. So i want to live in democratic country.

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Post by Dmytry Lavrov

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:56:52 +0300, "Vladimir Los"

Post by Vladimir Los
What really very amazes me in western peaple is "rigidity"
(straightforwardness ?) of their thinking. Somebody says you about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and you like a flock of sheep obediently go
where you was ordered. Where even any track of these weapons? Now it is
ascertained that "president was misleaded"... And what?

What really amazes me is the irony of someone from Ukraine (former
Soviet Union, current economic disaster and political fraud/voter
apathy wonderland) feeling he has the right to lecture any one about
being like a "flock of sheep".
Kuchma and his thugs still in charge? Voters done anything about the
massive fraud? No? Comical.
Stick to programming languages; your politics lack credibility.

You are right,and Wlad are right.
IMO xUSSR politicans are stupid. USA politicans are stupid too.All
politicans are stupid,anywhere,and it's inpossible to do something about
it - it's normal situation.

and let's do our work if we are not a stupids.

Post by Dmytry Lavrov
But in USA peoples have guns - only guns creates democraty(and destroys
it),
and in democratic countries politics can't do so stupid things with
peoples as in xussr. So i want to live in democratic country.

and let's swich to our work if we are not a stupids

[Bored With The Bitch]

Post by Dmytry Lavrov

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:56:52 +0300, "Vladimir Los"

Post by Vladimir Los
What really very amazes me in western peaple is "rigidity"
(straightforwardness ?) of their thinking. Somebody says you about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and you like a flock of sheep obediently go
where you was ordered. Where even any track of these weapons? Now it is
ascertained that "president was misleaded"... And what?

What really amazes me is the irony of someone from Ukraine (former
Soviet Union, current economic disaster and political fraud/voter
apathy wonderland) feeling he has the right to lecture any one about
being like a "flock of sheep".
Kuchma and his thugs still in charge? Voters done anything about the
massive fraud? No? Comical.
Stick to programming languages; your politics lack credibility.

You are right,and Wlad are right.
IMO xUSSR politicans are stupid. USA politicans are stupid too.All
politicans are stupid,anywhere,and it's inpossible to do something about
it - it's normal situation.
But in USA peoples have guns - only guns creates democraty(and destroys
it),
and in democratic countries politics can't do so stupid things with
peoples as in xussr. So i want to live in democratic country.

Forget about moving to the USA, then. I hear that Western Europe is not such
a bad place to live.

Ever heard of the USA PATRIOT ACT? Here it is, straight from the horse's ass.

http://www.bcis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/patriot.pdf (1.04Mb)

Basically, it is a combination of a law and instruction manual for turning the
USA from a democracy to a totalitarian police state. It basically starts from
the known fact that everyone else in the world hates our guts and the unstated
presumption that that maeks -everyone- (including US citizens) a "terrorist
suspect", then goes from there (including redefining certain ordinary crimes
as "terrorist acts").

"O yay! Let's all form a dictatorship so we can be free". Thinking like that
is seriously fucked.




It was rushed through Congress, with little debate and immediately signed by
Pres. Bush.


Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
======

[anonymus]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:56:52 +0300, "Vladimir Los"

Post by Vladimir Los
What really very amazes me in western peaple is "rigidity"
(straightforwardness ?) of their thinking. Somebody says you about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and you like a flock of sheep obediently go
where you was ordered. Where even any track of these weapons? Now it is
ascertained that "president was misleaded"... And what?

What really amazes me is the irony of someone from Ukraine (former
Soviet Union, current economic disaster and political fraud/voter
apathy wonderland) feeling he has the right to lecture any one about
being like a "flock of sheep".
Kuchma and his thugs still in charge? Voters done anything about the
massive fraud? No? Comical.
Stick to programming languages; your politics lack credibility.

Whatever part of the world you are from Mr Seefried: your posting lacks
both decency and understanding. It may have missed your attention that
not very citizen is responsible for the actions of hir country.

Judged from what is known so far Bush is by far worse than Kuchma. But
even it were the other way round it won't help in arguing against
Vladimir's correct observation: most people in the USA follow their
political leaders like a flock of sheep even without being forced to do so!

Please stay out of comp.lang.oberon and stop spoiling the conversation
with unqualified personal attacks.

YOUR POSTING SUCKS. DAMNED STUPID ASHOLE. YOU SHOULD BE TORTERED TO
DEATH FOR EIGHT YEARS. FUCK YOU! LEAVE US ALONE!

[Norman Black]

ISO M2 has OO features. Wirth M2 has been dead for an awful long time.

--
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software

Post by Tom
you say it, that's iso M2 or M3 something, not Wirth's Modula-2.
NB> Nobody has mentioned it but M2 has object oriented language
NB> features (CLASS type, referenced based object) and also generic
NB> modules (sort of like Ada generics). These were additions to the
NB> original first ISO M2 standard.
NB>
NB> --
NB> Norman Black
NB> Stony Brook Software
NB>
NB> > > Hi,
NB> > > many time i came accross these two names together. what are the
NB> > > differeces and similarities between the two languages?
NB> > >
NB> > > deepabh telang
NB> >
NB> > Oberon is a descendant of Modula-2 and Oberon-2 is a refinement of
NB> > Oberon. They are all strongly typed, have a high-level module system
NB> > (unlike C and C++), systematic definition of data types and control
NB> > constructs, and really beautiful syntax (e. g. compare
NB> > IF/ELSIF/ELSE/END to C and Pascal equivalents).
NB> >
NB> >
NB> > -Type extension (or inheritance) that allows the reuse of type
NB> > definitions. It also inherently adds polymorphism to the

language,

Post by Tom
NB> > thus allowing extensive code reuse.
NB> > -Run-time type introspection with the IS operator and WITH statement.
NB> >
NB> > On the other hand, some Modula-2 features were removed in the interest
NB> > -Constrained (subrange) types
NB> > -Enumeration types (it's a pity, I think)
NB> > -Nested modules
NB> > -Use of record fields and module's exported identifiers without the
NB> > full path
NB> > -FOR statement, reintroduced in Oberon-2
NB> >
NB> > Oberon-2 added type-bound procedures to implement objects' methods,
NB> > while the original Oberon relied on procedure variables.
NB> > The most recent refinement of Oberon-2 is called Component Pascal, but
NB> > there are also other dialects.
NB> >
NB> > Ondrej
NB>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

Post by Tom
Posted with Amiga NewsRog
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

[Tom]

Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son. The ISO
process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language with
many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.

I was/am a member of the US M2 standards committee (US TAG for
JTC1/SC22/WG13) and we voted no on every ballot for the above reasons.

I still really respect the original M2 and toy with it every once in a
while for old times sake, but its time has past.

Tom Reid

Post by Norman Black
ISO M2 has OO features. Wirth M2 has been dead for an awful long time.
--
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software

Post by Tom
you say it, that's iso M2 or M3 something, not Wirth's Modula-2.
NB> Nobody has mentioned it but M2 has object oriented language
NB> features (CLASS type, referenced based object) and also generic
NB> modules (sort of like Ada generics). These were additions to the
NB> original first ISO M2 standard.
NB>
NB> --
NB> Norman Black
NB> Stony Brook Software

[Norman Black]

Post by Tom
Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son.

The ISO

Post by Tom
process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language with
many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.

Can you be specific here. For example, how was the language completely
new. What extensions perverted the original goals.

I recall no problems when our code base was "ISOized". Of course this
was about 10 years ago.

The only "interesting" change as I remember was the new / and REM
integer division operators. Wirth had DIV and MOD. As I remember, MOD
was described as "modulus", yet it was always supposed to be an integer
remainder. Also, extensions do not hurt porting legacy code to the
standard.

--
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software

[Tom]

Norman:

Give me a few days as I haven't thought about it for a long, long time.
With luck, I will have some notes left to be specific but I doubt it. Let
me see what I can dig up. If Randy Bush is lurking in the bushes, he can
probably recite them.

Tom

Post by Tom

Post by Tom
Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son.

The ISO

Post by Tom
process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language

with

Post by Tom
many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.

Can you be specific here. For example, how was the language completely
new. What extensions perverted the original goals.
I recall no problems when our code base was "ISOized". Of course this
was about 10 years ago.
The only "interesting" change as I remember was the new / and REM
integer division operators. Wirth had DIV and MOD. As I remember, MOD
was described as "modulus", yet it was always supposed to be an integer
remainder. Also, extensions do not hurt porting legacy code to the
standard.
--
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software

[Martin Whitaker]

Post by Norman Black
The only "interesting" change as I remember was the new / and REM
integer division operators. Wirth had DIV and MOD. As I remember, MOD
was described as "modulus", yet it was always supposed to be an integer
remainder.

The problem was that Wirth did not say this in PIM2. At the time the ISO
standard was being drafted, the majority of compilers did not implement
true integer division and remainder for DIV and MOD. So the ISO standard
retains DIV and MOD with the semantics that were common practice at the
time, and added / and REM to provide true integer operations.

Post by Norman Black
Also, extensions do not hurt porting legacy code to the
standard.

Well said!

Martin

[Pat Terry]

Post by Tom

Post by Tom
Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son.

The ISO

Post by Tom
process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language

with

Post by Tom
many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.

Can you be specific here. For example, how was the language completely
new. What extensions perverted the original goals.

Have a look at

http://www.scifac.ru.ac.za/cspt/sc22wg13.htm

for a potted history of the ISO effort as I saw it develop

[Robert Solomon]

Post by Tom
Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son.
The ISO process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language
with many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.
Can you be specific here. For example, how was the language completely
new. What extensions perverted the original goals.
I recall no problems when our code base was "ISOized". Of course this
was about 10 years ago.
The only "interesting" change as I remember was the new / and REM
integer division operators. Wirth had DIV and MOD. As I remember, MOD
was described as "modulus", yet it was always supposed to be an integer
remainder. Also, extensions do not hurt porting legacy code to the
standard.
--
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software

I am a recreational programmer. I learned M2 on the Logitech DOS
compiler and used it when it became MultiScope. That was based on PIM.
So when I just recently tried to port my code to Win32, I was confused
by the ISO I/o libraries. To me, they were completely different. The
rest of my code converted essentially unaltered.

I plan on working my way thru learning the event based model needed for
full Win32 code. For now, my code works in console mode.

[john o goyo]

Post by Norman Black

Post by Tom
Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son.
The ISO process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language
with many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.

Can you be specific here. For example, how was the language completely
new. What extensions perverted the original goals.
I recall no problems when our code base was "ISOized". Of course this
was about 10 years ago.
The only "interesting" change as I remember was the new / and REM
integer division operators. Wirth had DIV and MOD. As I remember, MOD
was described as "modulus", yet it was always supposed to be an integer
remainder. Also, extensions do not hurt porting legacy code to the
standard.

Surely the addition of exceptions would count as a major extension, would it
not?
Another extension that broke existing correct code is that of raising an
exception in CASEs that fall through.

Post by Norman Black
--
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software

Sincerely,
john

[Izo]

Post by Tom
Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son. The ISO
process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language with
many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.

As I read somewhere the original goal was Pascal descendent for daily
and embedded use which Pascal (by Wirth) was not due to the lack of the
definition and standardization of the I/O functions. Main M2 differences
to Pascal were modularity and clear I/O standard library set. ISO M2
maintains that and more - I/O philisophy is even improved and more
transparent ! The only goal release from PIM2 to ISO M2 is whitepaper
size - ISO is larger (due to functionality added, of course) and this is
obviously against Wirth philosophy.

Post by Tom
I was/am a member of the US M2 standards committee (US TAG for
JTC1/SC22/WG13) and we voted no on every ballot for the above reasons.
I still really respect the original M2 and toy with it every once in a
while for old times sake, but its time has past.

Well, you toy with it - I have to use it for the sake of my extensive M2
codebase. And since there is too few people working on compilers to
support everything that runs Linux or vxWorks or whatever OS is being
used nowadays on embedded. And even so the differences between ISO M2
implementations are big and annoyant. And this certainly differs from
another original goal - tight language regarding the quantity of
standard libs to ease the implementations compatibility.

Iztok

[Norman Black]

Post by Izo
The only goal release from PIM2 to ISO M2 is whitepaper
size - ISO is larger (due to functionality added, of course) and this is
obviously against Wirth philosophy.

PIM2, PIM3 were loose definitions of the language. It was no intended to
be a rigorous definition. In my opinion ISO went way too far by using
the VDM-SL specification language in attempt to be rigorous with no room
for variation. This is the prime reason for the size of the ISO M2
document. It also makes the document unreadable to the normal person.
Who understands VDM-SL.

A better way for them to go would have been a more rigorous text, with
pass fail test cases. The test cases in effect then become a validation
suite that everyone agrees upon. This would have been something everyone
can read, understand and use.

Post by Izo
And even so the differences between ISO M2
implementations are big and annoyant.

Can you point out some differences you have come across. I only have a
few customers that I know use multiple compilers on a given codebase.
They use our compiler in Win32 and the p1 compiler on the Mac. They have
not complained to me, but then that is not saying much.

A while back we developed a VBA interpreter for one of these customers
and it had to compile on ours and the p1 compiler. Well ISO M2 forgot
about types like CARDINAL16, conditional compilation and such. I did not
want to deal with converting sources from one compiler to another so I
actually added the p1 compiler extensions to our compiler, while still
keeping existing features intact. All this took me a few hours and the
conditional compilation syntax was basically all of that. I then talked
to these people I know using the p1 compiler and ours and told them,
you probably should have asked for things like this years ago.

--
Norman Black
Stony Brook Software

Post by Izo

Post by Tom
Wirth M2, the stately king, was killed by ISO M2, the bastard son.

The ISO

Post by Izo

Post by Tom
process didn't "standardize" M2 but wrote a completely new language with
many extensions that perverted Wirth's original goals.

As I read somewhere the original goal was Pascal descendent for daily
and embedded use which Pascal (by Wirth) was not due to the lack of the
definition and standardization of the I/O functions. Main M2

differences

Post by Izo
to Pascal were modularity and clear I/O standard library set. ISO M2
maintains that and more - I/O philisophy is even improved and more
transparent ! The only goal release from PIM2 to ISO M2 is whitepaper
size - ISO is larger (due to functionality added, of course) and this is
obviously against Wirth philosophy.

Post by Tom
I was/am a member of the US M2 standards committee (US TAG for
JTC1/SC22/WG13) and we voted no on every ballot for the above reasons.
I still really respect the original M2 and toy with it every once in a
while for old times sake, but its time has past.

Well, you toy with it - I have to use it for the sake of my extensive M2
codebase. And since there is too few people working on compilers to
support everything that runs Linux or vxWorks or whatever OS is being
used nowadays on embedded. And even so the differences between ISO M2
implementations are big and annoyant. And this certainly differs from
another original goal - tight language regarding the quantity of
standard libs to ease the implementations compatibility.
Iztok

[e***@absamail.co.za]

Post by Tim Teulings
ooc and VisualOberon are (first?) step into that direction. They are
based on gcc (generating C and using gcc as compiler backend), they do
work on all major plattforms and OSs (Windows, Mac, Unix). They allow
interface to C libraries (and using C wrappers for C++ code also
interfacing to C++). ooc has some code for integration into the emacs
development IDE ;-) Libraries are under GPL and even LGPL!
ooc has recently taken major step by increasing performance, stability
and usebility. VisualOberon (in CVS) now has working ports for X11,
Windows, Mac OS X and even Curses (in order of solved integration).
Both are activly maintained.
http://ooc.sourceforge.net
http://visualoberon.sourceforge.net
Your are welcomed!

I've looked at ooc.sourceforge.net and I like what seems to be a
formal approach. But I can't change over from native-oberon, which
flies like a bullet for me. I can never give up the 3 button mouse
(except for a 5 button joystick) to peck away at a keyboard.

I'm a very heavy user of cutNpaste and search of text which originates
from the net - eg. legal research: legislation and case reports ..etc.

OTOH n-o has been a great disapointment in 'utility development',
and I can't get up to a fraction of the productivety which I acheived
in the old days of Turbo Pascal. Is emacs a good IDE ?

X-windows is so lame compared to n-o with mouse cording.
'Heads up flying' is the best way.

But since Wirth is 'out the door', I expect n-o to degenerate.
The openness, yet enforcement of discipline via CVS is what n-o
needs -- which apparently ooc has got ?

My dream is to capture the advantages of ooc AND n-o.
I don't know how to.

-- Chris Glur.

[Tim Teulings]

Hallo!

Post by e***@absamail.co.za
I've looked at ooc.sourceforge.net and I like what seems to be a
formal approach. But I can't change over from native-oberon, which
flies like a bullet for me. I can never give up the 3 button mouse
(except for a 5 button joystick) to peck away at a keyboard.

ooc is just a compiler, not a IDE. It is commandline based. You do
not need a mouse, you just need to type:

oo2c -M <Program>

thats all. You can (try to) embeed it in any IDE you like, emacs is
only one. You do not get a whole OS or a heavyly connected GUI with
it. You can use VisualOberon if you want plattform idependent GUIs.
But VisualOberon is neither a IDE, it is just a (huge) set fo classes.
It also tries to emulate common GUIs like Motif, Win32 or Mac. It
is not so sophisticated like the Oberon system GUI and it is not
so tighly connected to the language or the compiler.

Post by e***@absamail.co.za
OTOH n-o has been a great disapointment in 'utility development',
and I can't get up to a fraction of the productivety which I acheived
in the old days of Turbo Pascal. Is emacs a good IDE ?

oo2c is a good or even very good player when it comes to integration -
at least if the "to be integrated" stuff is a C library or can
be wrapped with C. Interfacing to PostgreSQL toke me one day,
interfacing to ASpell/PSpell another day. I was able to show the
Load of my Linux machine in a day and getting the size of all
my partitions in one day. To show the size of my windows partitions
- another one. Writing a small CDPlayer - two days (bad documentation
under Linux :-/). Getting my ISDN load and triggering dial in and dial
out via a small VisualOberon programm - again one day. How long would
it take under n-o? I watch TV using *my* TV program and I could
listen radio using my radio program (just have to finish it :-)).
And I have enough trouble to get hardware that works OK under Linux,
how difficult would it be to get it to run under Nativ Oberon?

It depends on your needs. *I* want to program in Oberon-2, but
I want to work under Linux, too (because of these other great
tools - or where is for example OpenOffice for Native Oberon?).

Post by e***@absamail.co.za
X-windows is so lame compared to n-o with mouse cording.
'Heads up flying' is the best way.
But since Wirth is 'out the door', I expect n-o to degenerate.
The openness, yet enforcement of discipline via CVS is what n-o
needs -- which apparently ooc has got ?

I have written a number of news regarding my opinion about
Oberon-2 and Oberon OSs. See google.

Post by e***@absamail.co.za
My dream is to capture the advantages of ooc AND n-o.
I don't know how to.

Define the task you want to do and choose that you can get
to fit best.

(set follow up to c.l.o, this stuff is Oberon-2 only stuff).

[e***@absamail.co.za]

What really amazes me is the irony of someone from Ukraine (former
Soviet Union, current economic disaster and political fraud/voter
apathy wonderland) feeling he has the right to lecture any one about
being like a "flock of sheep".

I think persons from Ukraine who have become sufficiently
'internationalised' to write readable english would be much
more qualified than the average contributor to this forum to
'lecture any one about being like a "flock of sheep" '.

Think about it.

-- Chris Glur.