3 ms·

Unlike you I actually know about this stuff (though it's much faded by now I admit). The looping issue is because modelling it - that is, giving it clear and s

Unlike you I actually know about this stuff (though it's much faded by now I admit). The looping issue is because modelling it - that is, giving it clear and simple formal semantics - was not trivial. The single-point of exit stuff is also there for the same reason. I'd agree that it's possibly not a good choice given the alternatives if you are doing non-verified code, but he had his reasons. If you ever wonder why modula-3's garbage collector only collected memory, you could not hook into it in the form of a destructor for management of resources other than memory, go and read up the complexities that being able to piggyback on a destructor brings. It gets bad. We could have some agreement but with "regurgitation", "strange fixation", "strange at best#" - this is the sound of you not understanding and not realising it, not wirth's deficiencies. If you think you can do better then go ahead. You'll learn a lot.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> read up the complexities that being able to piggyback on a destructor brings. It gets bad. Here's the Wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_resurrection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_resurrection
dmitriid 6y ago
> The looping issue is because modelling it - that is, giving it clear and simple formal semantics - was not trivial. Literally hundreds of programming languages have loops without unnecessary and random constraints > The single-point of exit stuff is also there for the same reason. The same reason of what exactly? > I'd agree that it's possibly not a good choice given the alternatives if you are doing non-verified code At what point Oberon code becomes verified? > If you think you can do better then go ahead. I realise that you haven't left Wirth's lab for the past 30 years, but there are hundreds of programming languages. Go ahead, you'll learn a lot.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > Literally hundreds of programming languages have loops without unnecessary and random constraints Hm? show me the 'unnecessary and random constraints' in looping. It was fundamental to the semantics that looping wasn't simple formally IIRC > he same reason of what exactly? It's literally there in the preceding sentence. > At what point Oberon code becomes verified? It didn't (AFAIK), hence my "possibly not a good choice". But as you don't know history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(programming_language) which "is descended from the Pascal programming language". IIRC the london underground train controller software was done with euclid. Please note the wide range of restrictions in the language - all for simplicity, from which reliability must in part depend. > I realise that you haven't left Wirth's lab for the past 30 years, don't be insulting > but there are hundreds of programming languages. Go ahead, you'll learn a lot. Like: scala? And C#? VB.net, VBScripting, a little bash, pascal, modula2, delphi, javascript, a flex/bison & antlr, python, sql, prolog (edit: C & C++) - these are all langs I've used commercially. If you want langs I've played with the list includes dylan, haskell, erlang, modula3 and others I can't think of now. Like I said, If you think you can do better then go ahead. Edit: what your angry reaction is concealing from you is I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but you can't see it and won't learn from it.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > what your angry reaction is concealing from you > don't be insulting Let's see about "my" reactions and "being insulting" - Unlike you I actually know about this stuff - this is the sound of you not understanding and not realising it - If you think you can do better then go ahead. You'll learn a lot. Take your holier than thou attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> read up the complexities that being able to piggyback on a destructor brings. It gets bad. Here's the Wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_resurrection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_resurrection

dmitriid 6y ago

> The looping issue is because modelling it - that is, giving it clear and simple formal semantics - was not trivial. Literally hundreds of programming languages have loops without unnecessary and random constraints > The single-point of exit stuff is also there for the same reason. The same reason of what exactly? > I'd agree that it's possibly not a good choice given the alternatives if you are doing non-verified code At what point Oberon code becomes verified? > If you think you can do better then go ahead. I realise that you haven't left Wirth's lab for the past 30 years, but there are hundreds of programming languages. Go ahead, you'll learn a lot.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> Literally hundreds of programming languages have loops without unnecessary and random constraints Hm? show me the 'unnecessary and random constraints' in looping. It was fundamental to the semantics that looping wasn't simple formally IIRC > he same reason of what exactly? It's literally there in the preceding sentence. > At what point Oberon code becomes verified? It didn't (AFAIK), hence my "possibly not a good choice". But as you don't know history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(programming_language) which "is descended from the Pascal programming language". IIRC the london underground train controller software was done with euclid. Please note the wide range of restrictions in the language - all for simplicity, from which reliability must in part depend. > I realise that you haven't left Wirth's lab for the past 30 years, don't be insulting > but there are hundreds of programming languages. Go ahead, you'll learn a lot. Like: scala? And C#? VB.net, VBScripting, a little bash, pascal, modula2, delphi, javascript, a flex/bison & antlr, python, sql, prolog (edit: C & C++) - these are all langs I've used commercially. If you want langs I've played with the list includes dylan, haskell, erlang, modula3 and others I can't think of now. Like I said, If you think you can do better then go ahead. Edit: what your angry reaction is concealing from you is I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but you can't see it and won't learn from it.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > what your angry reaction is concealing from you > don't be insulting Let's see about "my" reactions and "being insulting" - Unlike you I actually know about this stuff - this is the sound of you not understanding and not realising it - If you think you can do better then go ahead. You'll learn a lot. Take your holier than thou attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine.