Re: [ooc-compiler] Oberon-2 standard

[August <fus...@sp...>]

> Don't get
> too impressed with the word "standard".  Oberon (which was hardware,
> operating system, and programming language in the beginning) was, and
> probably still is, a vehicle for research and teaching -- but not for
> "standards".

I can't see why the popular conclusion "the language is not complicated
enough, so it can't be a production language" should hold true. Apart from a
small (maybe toy) library "The Oakwood Guidelines for Oberon-2 Compiler
Developers" also discusses interrupt and code procedures, interfacing to
external languages and compilation control. With these additions the
language should be just as much a production language as e.g. C.

> All programms I have seen that were both Oakwood compatible and
> portable were either student exercises or toy programs.  To have a
> program that runs both on the original Oberon System and in an
> environment like Unix is a challenge.

As far as I know the Oakwood report discusses a standard for compiler
writers, not for Oberon operating system developers. Regarding the Oakwood
modules my point is that OOC are free to choose *any* names for its modules
but the eight ones "reserved" by the Oakwood standard.
Why then choose some of these names (`In', `Out', `Files' and `Strings') for
non-compatible modules and cause confusion?

> It is pretty safe to assume that there are very few users that program
> for the Oakwood guidelines.

Maybe that has to do with the fact that there is no (as far as i know) fully
Oakwood compliant compiler (outside the Oberon OS).

-- August