Re: [ooc-compiler] Oberon-2 standard
Brought to you by:
mva
|
From: August <fus...@sp...> - 2004-05-27 18:12:05
|
> 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 |