From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3F649C0E.6090405@Princeton.EDU>
From: Martin Harriss <martin@Princeton.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] g++
References: <81132473206F3A46A72BD6116E1A06AE479C66@black.aprote.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:49:18 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 34dbba56-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.

Martin


Tiit Lankots wrote:
>>>Looking back at your previous message, perhaps it is the
>>>"scope rules and silent actions associated with inheritance", in
>>>which case are there any "Object Oriented" languages that you think
>>>are OK?
>>
>>I'm not Charles, but I also answer.
>>
>>Have you seen Oberon-2?  It is OO done well.
>>
>>Brantley Coile
>>
>>
>
>
> Oberon-2 pushes complexity out of the language and into the libraries, not
> unlike C. The part I miss most in it is some form of generics. Although I must
> agree that its O-O is rather well-designed, indeed.
>
> There appears to be some nasty law of physics at work here: the simple and
> elegant O-O languages are easy to use right, but at the same time lack the
> single biggest trump of O-O -- generics; while the languages that contain
> generics are cumbersome and ugly. Go figure.
>
> Tiit Lankots
>