You can find a comparison I wrote a couple of years back, between Ada and
Modula-3, at:
http://www.cs.wichita.edu/~rodney/languages/Modula-Ada-comparison.txt
Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:11:47 +0200, Olaf Wagner wrote:
>
>
>>gcc has grown, and so has the m3cg backend, which currently looks like
>>this (for gcc 3.4.5):
>
>
> I've just subscribed to c.l.m3: sorry for dredging up the past.
>
> Have any of the modula3 maintainers looked at using the LLVM
> infrastructure as a back-end, rather than GCC? Or perhaps emiting ANSI
C
> as the intermediate form (as Sma{ll,rt}Eiffel and several Scheme
> compilers do)?
>
> Further to the "why" question, and without trying to be inflammatory:
what
> do the M3 afficianados think of Eiffel and Ada (and maybe Oberon), all
of
> which seem to inhabit approximately the same or similar
> object/syntax-flavour/native-code niche (although Ada seems to do it
> without garbage collection).
>
> [I do like a lot of what I've seen of Modula-3, and did work in Modula-2
> while at University, twenty years ago, but platform independence and
tool
> availability have always mitigated in favour of C (or native assembler)
> during my professional career. I'd love to be able to change that...]
>
> Cheers,
>
|
