5 ms·

Checkout Oberon (the successor of Pascal and Modula). The whole language guide for Oberon is just 17 pages because it follows this philosophy ("Make it as simpl

Checkout Oberon (the successor of Pascal and Modula). The whole language guide for Oberon is just 17 pages because it follows this philosophy ("Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Einstein) - https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/Oberon/Oberon07.Report.pdf https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/Oberon/Oberon07.Report.pdf . Mostly Oberon - a series of blog posts documenting exploration of the Oberon Language - https://rsdoiel.github.io/blog/2020/04/11/Mostly-Oberon.html https://rsdoiel.github.io/blog/2020/04/11/Mostly-Oberon.html Oberon to C Compiler - https://github.com/GunterMueller/OBNC https://github.com/GunterMueller/OBNC Oberon+ - Oberon parser, code model & browser, compiler and IDE with debugger - https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon

hazelnut-tree 4y ago
Niklaus Wirth, the creator of Oberon (and Pascal and Modula-2) has been in the small programming camp all his professional life. I also agree with his views. One of the advantages of small languages is that you can actually learn or master the whole language. However, small doesn't always mean simple. An example is the frequent discussion over Go's supposed simplicity. Other new languages fall in the medium-to-large size: Julia, Nim, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, Crystal. Back to Niklaus Wirth and his thoughts on Oberon: > There was obviously no way [for Oberon] to play an influence next to Java and C# and C++...But yes, I thought, as I did in the Pascal times, the foundations have been laid when a person learns his first programming language. That’s the key. In order to do a good experience, you have to have a clean language with a good structure concentrating on the essential concepts and not being snowed in. > That is my primary objection to the commercial languages – they’re simply too huge, and they’re so huge that nobody can understand them in their entirety. And it’s not necessary that they’re so huge. But people don’t want to see that. Particularly industry doesn’t. I think the industry thinks it’s a big asset to have a complex thing that increases their reputation of being sophisticated. (From a 2018 interview with Niklaus Wirth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUgrS_KbSI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUgrS_KbSI8)
- lifthrasiir 4y ago
  I think Pascal itself serves as Wirth's own counterexample. When I first learned Pascal it was not the original version of Pascal. It was a Borland's highly extended version of Pascal, then later Delphi. Wirth still has a point as they are considerably smaller than many contemporary languages, but it is clear to me that a bare Pascal wasn't large enough.
  - Rochus 4y ago
    From my point of view this also applies to Oberon.
    - carapace 4y ago
      You're both missing the point maybe? Oberon the language was plenty good enough to create Oberon the OS which ran ETH Zurich for a decade or two. The University used the Lilith and Ceres workstations as their main system (as far as I know.) It wasn't a toy, it was the bleeding edge in it's day. The point is that the functionality of current systems hasn't progressed much beyond what you could manage three or four decades ago despite Moore's law because complexity has eaten the gains.
      - Rochus 4y ago
        I don't think so. Actually Wirth himself made additions to the original Oberon proposal, not by coincidence. Personally I prefer Oberon+ over original Oberon. See https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-Oberon-programming-language-by-Niklaus-Wirth-more-popular/answer/Rochus-Keller https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-Oberon-programming-langua..., https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/15/motivation-for-a-new-oberon-version.html https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/15/motivation-for-a-ne..., and https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/16/comparing-oberon+-with-oberon-2-and-07.html https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/16/comparing-oberon+-w....
        carapace 4y ago
        That looks like a pretty cool language. To me it sounds like you and the other person were saying that Pascal and Oberon weren't "large enough". I'm just pointing out that they were large enough that people can and did do serious work with them, and that, in many ways, our modern systems aren't that much better than what they achieved with those relatively simple and primitive tools. They weren't perfect, both languages grew and became more elaborate, that's true, but the original systems were solid.

hazelnut-tree 4y ago

Niklaus Wirth, the creator of Oberon (and Pascal and Modula-2) has been in the small programming camp all his professional life. I also agree with his views. One of the advantages of small languages is that you can actually learn or master the whole language. However, small doesn't always mean simple. An example is the frequent discussion over Go's supposed simplicity. Other new languages fall in the medium-to-large size: Julia, Nim, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, Crystal. Back to Niklaus Wirth and his thoughts on Oberon: > There was obviously no way [for Oberon] to play an influence next to Java and C# and C++...But yes, I thought, as I did in the Pascal times, the foundations have been laid when a person learns his first programming language. That’s the key. In order to do a good experience, you have to have a clean language with a good structure concentrating on the essential concepts and not being snowed in. > That is my primary objection to the commercial languages – they’re simply too huge, and they’re so huge that nobody can understand them in their entirety. And it’s not necessary that they’re so huge. But people don’t want to see that. Particularly industry doesn’t. I think the industry thinks it’s a big asset to have a complex thing that increases their reputation of being sophisticated. (From a 2018 interview with Niklaus Wirth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUgrS_KbSI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUgrS_KbSI8)

lifthrasiir 4y ago
I think Pascal itself serves as Wirth's own counterexample. When I first learned Pascal it was not the original version of Pascal. It was a Borland's highly extended version of Pascal, then later Delphi. Wirth still has a point as they are considerably smaller than many contemporary languages, but it is clear to me that a bare Pascal wasn't large enough.
- Rochus 4y ago
  From my point of view this also applies to Oberon.
  - carapace 4y ago
    You're both missing the point maybe? Oberon the language was plenty good enough to create Oberon the OS which ran ETH Zurich for a decade or two. The University used the Lilith and Ceres workstations as their main system (as far as I know.) It wasn't a toy, it was the bleeding edge in it's day. The point is that the functionality of current systems hasn't progressed much beyond what you could manage three or four decades ago despite Moore's law because complexity has eaten the gains.
    - Rochus 4y ago
      I don't think so. Actually Wirth himself made additions to the original Oberon proposal, not by coincidence. Personally I prefer Oberon+ over original Oberon. See https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-Oberon-programming-language-by-Niklaus-Wirth-more-popular/answer/Rochus-Keller https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-Oberon-programming-langua..., https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/15/motivation-for-a-new-oberon-version.html https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/15/motivation-for-a-ne..., and https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/16/comparing-oberon+-with-oberon-2-and-07.html https://oberon-lang.github.io/2021/07/16/comparing-oberon+-w....
      - carapace 4y ago
        That looks like a pretty cool language. To me it sounds like you and the other person were saying that Pascal and Oberon weren't "large enough". I'm just pointing out that they were large enough that people can and did do serious work with them, and that, in many ways, our modern systems aren't that much better than what they achieved with those relatively simple and primitive tools. They weren't perfect, both languages grew and became more elaborate, that's true, but the original systems were solid.