graham.kerr.stark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hi,
> I was a big Modula-2 user from the days of Topspeed, through to
> about 2001. We built simulation models (you can play with one here, if
> you're interested:
> http://bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/model/
- that's XDS Modula running
> on Linux with a Java front end).
>
> I haven't posted here in many years. The group was busier then!
>
> I don't think we could have achieved anything like we did if we hadn't
> switched to this family of languages (first Turbo Pascal, then Modula,
> now I use Ada quite a lot (better sup****t, uglier language) whilst
> former colleagues use Delphi(ditto) ).
>
> So, I have two questions:
>
> 1) Why have these languages failed? Ada and Delphi are alive to an
> extent, but none dominate, and - lets' face it Modula-2 is barely used
> at all. At first sight, they offer so many advantages, especially in
> clarity and type safety.
>
> 2) Is it fixable? Can anyone imagine a language in this tradition that
> might be a hit? What would it look like?
>
> I have my own views but would love to know what you all think.
Nothing 'went wrong' with Modula-2, but many things have conspired
against it.
a) What is windows written in ?
That factor alone, gives the 'windows in***bent language',
(whatever it happens to be), a juggernaught advantage.
b) How large IS the Compiler industry ?
Not very large, look at Borland : one of the pioneers, and
they are re-branding into some cor****ate-warm-fuzzies
thing, with 'enterprise' buzz words. Going for fewer customers,
with larger dollars per customer.
Their actual compiler revenue is small.
Same with TopSpeed/Clarion.
Does microsoft still charge for their compilers ?
That leaves Modula-2 as a niche language, in an already
niche industry, with ststic/falling revenues.
c) Inertia and 'good enough'
These also conspire against change. C was 'good enough',
and a large number of cores release C first. There they
stagnate, as the effort to release any better languages hits
the repidly dimini****ng returns.
-jg
|
