Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

programming language comparison (Miscellaneous)

posted by marcov, 04.03.2020, 11:02

> If Oberon was exclusively tied to OberonOS, then that wouldn't be ideal.
> But there are many hosted compilers for other OSes, obviously, even DOS!
> There are many improved dialects, as I mentioned, so that's not totally
> restricting anyone either.
Most of that is from after my interest in Oberon. But the core point is that I don't have anything that would make me consider to Oberon in the first place.

> Don't forget that Extended Pascal was a strict superset of classic ISO
> Pascal, same as Objective C was originally a strict superset of C.
And I use neither.

> (Modula-3 doesn't really fully inherit from Modula-2 but instead went a bit
> wayward. Actually, I think it was an improved Modula-2+ from third-parties.
> Still interesting.)
I think M3 was an attempt to make an application building language to M2 the systems language, like C++ to C. Totally different objectives and approach.

And while I think that M2 with some (fairly common) improvements was a decent systems languages, I didn't really think M3 was all that special, tried to force OO too hard without it being fleshed out enough.

But as said it was a bit unfair since when I did most of that reconnaissance I used commercial M2 compilers (under educational license). Then the DEC M3 system looked really poor.

> Historically, it's tied to Minix,

I considered porting FPC to Minix somewhere in the 2003-2006 period. Probably during the Minux2->Minix3 transition. But my life changed from academia to daily work in that period, so in the end I never did.


> Too old and limited for most people,

Yeah, and that too. And, like OpenBSD in that time, they had some limitations to force you to spend a certain amount of monetary resources (in OpenBSD's case, no ready made disc images, in Minix case, buying the book)

So I had a large motivational problem.

> C has some warts, but overall it's fairly good and works.

Not everything that you can manage is good.

> Pessimists who only see negatives will never even try to solve the
> obvious problems. Optimists make do with what they have. "A poor carpenter
> blames his tools!"
The problem is that the Optimists label those people as pessimists. Those pessimists would probably self-identify as realists and label the Optimists as "Hopeless Dreamers that never get anything done" :_)

> Anything that works is good. Anything that works cleanly and efficiently is
> better. But a portable solution is best because a localized solution that
> nobody else can use is almost worthless.
IMHO portability is overrated. Few things are portable without reduced functionality , and even then require constant maintenance to remain that way.



> Like I said, I
> heard that Modula-3's biggest portability problem, by far, was its garbage
> collector.

Yeah, but nowadays GCed languages are more common. It might have been the problem of that *implementation*. But while I don't like GC, portability of the implementation should not be the main argument against

> > (GM2)
> > I know it exists, but never dug deep into it, other than some reading on
> > the website. And I have an allergy of GCC mods after GPC.
>
> But is either useful for your production needs? Do either GM2 or GPC come
> close to doing what Delphi does for you? And if not, why not?
GPC and GM2 probably don't even get close to my private requirements, let alone my professional.

I wouldn't even know where to start to list. No OO dialect, tons of libraries used etc. Moreover I connect to visual studio code (camera drivers), so whatever I use must be exception system compatible to VS C++ code. (read: SEH, not SJ)

But mostly importantly: no significant reason to try.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22749 Postings in 2119 Threads, 402 registered users (1 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum