3 ms·

Orders of magnitude difference in buid time is significant enough. Sample code also shows no tangible benefit in using Modula/2. No wonder it went away quickly.

by sedatk 9y ago

Orders of magnitude difference in buid time is significant enough. Sample code also shows no tangible benefit in using Modula/2. No wonder it went away quickly. Oberon, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

pjmlp 9y ago
Borland gave up on Turbo Modula-2 and decided to extend Turbo Pascal, with Modula-2 features. In the MS-DOS golden days, Turbo Pascal was the best Pascal dialect, to the point it was more relevant if a Pascal compiler was compatible with Turbo Pascal dialect than with the ISO Pascal. Also the reason why although ISO Extended Pascal was created as a means to solve the initial complains regarding ISO Pascal, almost no one cared about its existence. Modula-2 had more commercial success on other systems.
_ph_ 9y ago
There is no feature in the Modula language which makes it compilation fundamentally slower than the compilation of Pascal. Actually, Turbo Pascal later retrofitted the main Modula feature - seperate compilation of modules - onto the Pascal language in the form of units. The observed differences in the compile times should come from implementation differences of the compilers - the fact that the Modula compiler took longer to run but produced the faster executable hints towards the Modula compiler spending its time on code optimization.
mhd 9y ago
I'll do my Cato part: Let's not forget Modula-3. And yes, the sample code shows no benefit, but once your code grows, Units/Modules are pretty nice to have, even on constrained systems. And this version of Turbo Pascal didn't have this (nor Pascal in general, resulting in huge hodgepodge of incompatible dialects). I never did much with coroutines in general and don't know how useful they'd be on a Z80 CP/M system…
- pjmlp 9y ago
  > Let's not forget Modula-3. https://github.com/modula3/cm3 https://github.com/modula3/cm3 Last commit 4 days ago. :)

by sedatk 9y ago

pjmlp 9y ago

Borland gave up on Turbo Modula-2 and decided to extend Turbo Pascal, with Modula-2 features. In the MS-DOS golden days, Turbo Pascal was the best Pascal dialect, to the point it was more relevant if a Pascal compiler was compatible with Turbo Pascal dialect than with the ISO Pascal. Also the reason why although ISO Extended Pascal was created as a means to solve the initial complains regarding ISO Pascal, almost no one cared about its existence. Modula-2 had more commercial success on other systems.

_ph_ 9y ago

There is no feature in the Modula language which makes it compilation fundamentally slower than the compilation of Pascal. Actually, Turbo Pascal later retrofitted the main Modula feature - seperate compilation of modules - onto the Pascal language in the form of units. The observed differences in the compile times should come from implementation differences of the compilers - the fact that the Modula compiler took longer to run but produced the faster executable hints towards the Modula compiler spending its time on code optimization.

mhd 9y ago

I'll do my Cato part: Let's not forget Modula-3. And yes, the sample code shows no benefit, but once your code grows, Units/Modules are pretty nice to have, even on constrained systems. And this version of Turbo Pascal didn't have this (nor Pascal in general, resulting in huge hodgepodge of incompatible dialects). I never did much with coroutines in general and don't know how useful they'd be on a Z80 CP/M system…

pjmlp 9y ago
> Let's not forget Modula-3. https://github.com/modula3/cm3 https://github.com/modula3/cm3 Last commit 4 days ago. :)