Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it?

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 05/26/2015 01:49 AM, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>>
> I also downloaded the Oberon report and had a look at it (easy, only 17
> pages). I'd say it is not to be compared with anything close to a
> standard. It's just a "report" that gives a vague idea of the language
> without addressing any serious issue. TBH, it claims that its fuzzy
> definitions are intended:
> 
> "What remains unsaid is mostly left so intentionally, either because it
> is derivable from stated rules of the language, or because it would
> unnecessarily restrict the freedom of implementors."
> 
> Translate: we don't care for portability.

That was my reaction to that sentence as well. Of course, the ARM has some of
those, as well. There's no reason Integer couldn't be defined as

type Integer is range -(2 ** 15) + 1 .. (2 ** 15) - 1;

rather than being implementation defined with at least that range. That would
enhance portability and decrease overuse of the predefined type.

> And the list of missing features is stunning, just some of them:
> No user defined integer types (only two integer types: BYTE and INTEGER,
> and they are /not/ incompatible), no enumeration types, no fixed points,
> arrays indexed from 0, no variant records, no exceptions, no tasking, no
> generics, no representation clauses, structural equivalence for array
> parameters, no user defined operators, no overloading, no overriding, etc...
> 
> Looks more like a slightly improved Pascal appropriate for teaching than
> an industrial language.

Those are differences between Ada and Oberon. Whether they're "missing" from
Oberon is a matter of opinion; clearly jan.de.kruyf@gmail.com doesn't think so.

As to being "a slightly improved Pascal", having modules and terminators for
compound statements is an improvement, but Pascal had enumeration types and
array ranges with differing low bounds, and lacking those is going in the wrong
direction IMO, so the overall improvement seems pretty close to nil.

Anyway, if you took the ARM, got rid of all the things Oberon doesn't have,
eliminated the precision of the definitions and any "unnecessary" verbiage,
you'd probably end up close to Oberon's 17 pp.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"What's special about Agile is that it's a mix of the
best and the worst."
Bertrand Meyer
148