From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20030914171321.19236.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] g++
In-reply-to: <3F649C0E.6090405@Princeton.EDU>
References: <81132473206F3A46A72BD6116E1A06AE479C66@black.aprote.com> <3F649C0E.6090405@Princeton.EDU>
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:13:20 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 34fa660e-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

| I've always liked Modula-3.  You do have to write code in a somewhat
| idiomatic fashion to get the full benefit of the OO capabilities, but
| overall it's quite a simple langueage (passes the "50-page rule.)  And
| it has generics.
|
| Shame it never cuaght on.

But completely understandable.  The designers thought that sylistic
compatability with Modula-2 was important, but in reality the many
differences put off M2 users, while the Wirth style lack of ergonimics
put off C users.  Things like mandatory upper case keywords, and
unnecessary semicolons just screamed "B&D language".  Also, the quality
of implementation wasn't that good.  Simple programs created huge,
slow executables.  Why suffer when g++ does so much better?