Modula-2 and Modula-3 
Author Message
 Modula-2 and Modula-3

Quote:

> Was the standard finally approved? Has anyone done an implementation?

As these are questions about Modula-2 rather than Modula-3, I'd suggest
that we follow up in comp.lang.modula2.

Briefly, however, the standard has been approved and there are
implementations available for a number of platforms.



Sun, 02 May 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Modula-2 and Modula-3

Quote:


> > Was the standard finally approved? Has anyone done an implementation?

> As these are questions about Modula-2 rather than Modula-3, I'd suggest
> that we follow up in comp.lang.modula2.

> Briefly, however, the standard has been approved and there are
> implementations available for a number of platforms.

OK, let's follow up here. When was the standard approved? Is it
available on the WWW or via FTP? Most of the traffic I see here now is
about the (very good but limited) systems which I depended upon several
years ago (check out the 1991 Loughborough Conference proceedings if you
need more info).

Are people still stuggling with the thread-dangerous STORAGE module from
JPI?

Alan



Sun, 02 May 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Modula-2 and Modula-3


Quote:


>> > Was the standard finally approved? Has anyone done an implementation?

>> As these are questions about Modula-2 rather than Modula-3, I'd suggest
>> that we follow up in comp.lang.modula2.

>> Briefly, however, the standard has been approved and there are
>> implementations available for a number of platforms.

>OK, let's follow up here. When was the standard approved? Is it
>available on the WWW or via FTP? Most of the traffic I see here now is
>about the (very good but limited) systems which I depended upon several
>years ago (check out the 1991 Loughborough Conference proceedings if you
>need more info).

>Are people still stuggling with the thread-dangerous STORAGE module from
>JPI?

>Alan

The Modula-2 standard was approved per 1996-06-01 by ISO/IEC.
The number is ISO/IEC 10514-1.
The standard is NOT available on-line, because the copyright is with ISO
and those people need to make money by selling standards. DO NOT BLAME ME!
Two articles on Modula-2 standardization have (finally) appeared.
You will find both articles in Sigplan Notices, Vol 31, No 8, Aug 1996.
The first article is:
ISO/IEC 10514-1, the standard for Modula-2, Process Aspects;
by C. Pronk and M. Schoenhacker.
The second article is:
ISO/IEC 10514-1, the standard for Modula-2, Changes, Clarifications and
Additions;
by M. Schoenhacker and C. Pronk.
In one of these articles you will find references to several standard
conforming compilers.
For further information read the faq and visit our website at
  http://sc22wg13.twi.tudelft.nl
Regards, Kees Pronk. (* WG13 ftp and Web maintainer *)
PS Send my greetings to Frode.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
- C. (Kees) Pronk                                
- Delft University of Technology                  
- Fac. of Techn. Math. and Informatics              
- P.O. Box 356, NL-2600 AJ Delft, The Netherlands    
- Phone: +31-152781803, Fax: +31-152787141              
--------------------------------------------------------

--
--------------------------------------------------------
- C. (Kees) Pronk                                
- Delft University of Technology                  
- Fac. of Techn. Math. and Informatics              



Mon, 03 May 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Modula-2 and Modula-3

Quote:



> > > Was the standard finally approved? Has anyone done an implementation?

> > As these are questions about Modula-2 rather than Modula-3, I'd suggest
> > that we follow up in comp.lang.modula2.

> > Briefly, however, the standard has been approved and there are
> > implementations available for a number of platforms.

> OK, let's follow up here. When was the standard approved? Is it
> available on the WWW or via FTP? Most of the traffic I see here now is
> about the (very good but limited) systems which I depended upon several
> years ago (check out the 1991 Loughborough Conference proceedings if you
> need more info).

> Are people still stuggling with the thread-dangerous STORAGE module from
> JPI?

> Alan

If you check the Modula-2 FAQ, you will find the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.7.1 What is the status of ISO Standard Modula-2?
A. The international standard (IS 10514) has been voted on and is now
official.

1.7.2 Where can I get the Modula-2 standard?
A1. Contact your national standards body or ISO (the publisher.)

A2. Try looking in
ftp://ftp.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/pub/soft/modula/standard/draft4/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The documents at the above FTP site are a draft of the ISO standard; the
standard is *not* identical to the draft, but the differences are not
great.

The current Stony Brook compiler is ISO-compliant. The XDS compiler
built in Novosibirsk is ISO-compliant. I am not sure, but I *think* that
the Australian-built GPM compiler is ISO-compliant.

I can't speak for "people", but *I* haven't used the JPI compilers for
years.

                                        -- Aron

[I have removed comp.lang.modula3 from the list of newsgroups for this
message]



Mon, 03 May 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Modula-2 and Modula-3


Other people have answered the questions about the standard,
so I'll deal with the remaining question.

Quote:
>Are people still stuggling with the thread-dangerous STORAGE module from
>JPI?

1. It's not thread-dangerous if you use the multithread
   memory model.
2. For other memory models, it doesn't have to be a struggle.
   My approach has been to define a new module Storage1,
   which puts critical section protection around calls to
   the Storage procedures.

This is not uniquely a JPI problem.  I had the same problem
when I used to use the FTL compiler, and I suspect that it's
also an issue for several other compilers.  A few years ago
most compiler-writers did a poor job on supporting multiple
threads; some compilers even omitted things like IOTRANSFER,
presumably because they fell into the "too hard" category.

This has become a non-issue for me now, because I've moved
to a standard-compliant compiler.  The JPI compiler was
good while it lasted, and I imagine that people will still
be using it for some years to come; but TopSpeed has
apparently lost interest in selling it, so its use is now
confined to those people who bought it before Clarion
decided to scuttle it.

--

       http://www.ee.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/peter/Moylan.html



Mon, 03 May 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Modula-2 and Modula-3


writes

Quote:


>> > Was the standard finally approved? Has anyone done an implementation?

>> As these are questions about Modula-2 rather than Modula-3, I'd suggest
>> that we follow up in comp.lang.modula2.

>> Briefly, however, the standard has been approved and there are
>> implementations available for a number of platforms.

>OK, let's follow up here. When was the standard approved? Is it
>available on the WWW or via FTP? Most of the traffic I see here now is
>about the (very good but limited) systems which I depended upon several
>years ago (check out the 1991 Loughborough Conference proceedings if you
>need more info).

>Are people still stuggling with the thread-dangerous STORAGE module from
>JPI?

Well I for one am just about still with JPI, but mainly because of the
inertia of legacy code.
It's not however that I am unhappy with M2 rather that I _need_ an up to
date compiler and development environment, not promises that one will be
along as soon as this next little tweak to Clarion is completed.

If TopSpeed ever remember the "cross grade to Clarion now & you'll get a
free copy of the M2 add-on when it is available" offer, I'll be happy to
give the product a fair trial, but the current reality is that rivals in
the shape of MSVC++ & Watcom C/C++ are lurking on my hard disk and
starting to get used.

Regards
David Wright
An t-Eilean Sgitheanach (Isle of Skye, Scotland)



Tue, 04 May 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Modula-2 and Modula-3

Quote:
> Well I for one am just about still with JPI, but mainly because of the
> inertia of legacy code.
> It's not however that I am unhappy with M2 rather that I _need_ an up
> to
> date compiler and development environment, not promises that one will
> be
> along as soon as this next little tweak to Clarion is completed.

> If TopSpeed ever remember the "cross grade to Clarion now & you'll
> get a
> free copy of the M2 add-on when it is available" offer, I'll be happy
> to
> give the product a fair trial, but the current reality is that rivals
> in
> the shape of MSVC++ & Watcom C/C++ are lurking on my hard disk and
> starting to get used.

Agree with every word. I must say that there is an interesting parallel
here between Modula-2 being shelved inside Clarion and Modula-2 being
shelved inside Borland- which is, of course, how JPI came into being.

Mark Morgan Lloyd

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or
colleagues]

** Internet feed may be unreliable- please cc anything important by email
**



Sat, 08 May 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 7 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. translation tools C to Modula-2 and Modula-2 to C

2. MODULA-2 (OR MODULA-3) GRAMMAR

3. Not JPI, Was: Modula-2 and Modula-3

4. Modula-2 for cp/m-80 (was: turbo Modula-2)

5. Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C o

6. Interfacing C/C++ to Modula-3/Oberon Re (2): Use of Modula-3

7. Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++

8. Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++)

9. Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C o

10. Modula-2/modula-3 complier

11. Looking for Modula-2C - An Object-Oriented Extension of Modula-2

12. MOGLI: MOdula-2 GEM LIbrary for all Modula-2 ST compilers

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software