Re: Ada compiler using a M2 compiler as back-end

[Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Feb 7, 11:05 pm, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:29:23 +0100, Gautier write-only
> <gautier_niou...@hotmail.com> a écrit:
>
> > Just saw that a Modula-2 compiler (Stony Brook) has been recently
> > released as freeware:
>
> >  http://modula2.org/adwm2/
>
> I wondered why Modula-2 instead of Modula-3. A quick search on the web
> suggest Modula-3 was not widely adopted as an industry standard. Does that
> mean Modula-2 is really widely adopted ?

I'm far from authoritative, but ...

Wirth developed Modula-2 as a successor to Pascal, from 1980-6, then
switched to Oberon. Modula-3 (inspired by Modula-2+) was developed
independently by DEC SRC from 1988-91. When DEC died (1997?), so did
[SRC] Modula-3 (though a few derivatives still supported it, see PM3
or CM3). Once Ada95 and C++98 were standardized (ISO), there was less
need to use Modula-3 as they had the same basic features (objects,
generics, exceptions). Even Oberon-2 (1992) has objects, dynamic
arrays, garbage collection. But Oberon was never standardized, and
even ISO Modula-2 (1996) was quite big (vs. PIM3) and unpopular with
the vendors (ahem, VDM-SL), though it did add some things (standard
libs, complex, finally, exceptions; optional: OOP and/or generics).
Also keep in mind that GCC never "officially" integrated Pascal or
Modula-3 like it did with C++ and Ada, but SRC Modula-3 and ETH Oberon
were free anyways, so that gave them some free exposure. GCC's GM2
(stabilized a year ago) is trying to partially rectify this but is
currently only for old 4.1.2.

AFAIK, the only ISO Modula-2 compilers are p1, XDS, GM2 (all still
maintained, barely). I have not tried ADW (above), so I can't say
about it.