Comment by 🐙 norayr

=> Re: "Has anybody looked at Oberon+? [https link] Oberon+..." | In: s/pascal

i personally think oberon is great as is and it should not change. wirth created it as it is for many reasons and knew what he was doing. i think it's okay to have better tooling around the compiler but i do not believe that syntax should be more complex rhan it is now.

i am afraid of oberon popularity and people asking for features. that is the way to turn oberon to something else, which is not oberon.

=> 🐙 norayr [mod]

2024-10-14 · 4 months ago

1 Later Comment

=> 👽 TKurtBond [OP] · Nov 29 at 20:38:

There are already a bunch of different variants of Oberon, so I don't think it hurts for there to be another variant that adds generics, but I definitely think that original Oberon, Oberon-2, and Wirth's last version of Oberon need to stick around for the long term. I really like that Vishap Oberon, for instance is an Oberon-2 compiler, and I hope it doesn't add non-Oberon-2 features. I do like some of the features in Oberon+, though I'm not wild about the "new syntax": I don't think adding it is going to help Oberon+'s popularity.

Original Post

=> 🌒 s/pascal

Has anybody looked at Oberon+? [https link] Oberon+ Sometimes I'm looking for something just a little bigger than Oberon-2, and I like some of the ideas from Oberon+, although I'm indifferent to the (optional) new syntax. In particular, the version of generics in Oberon+ looks attractive. There is an article on the approaches considered and the approach actually taken here: [https link] Considering Generics I'd like to never again have to write another linked list implementation just because...

=> 💬 TKurtBond · 11 comments · 2024-10-03 · 4 months ago