Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!rmarti
From: rmarti@sun.uucp (Bob Marti)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: C++ and Modula-2 (and something about data abstraction)
Message-ID: <2958@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 13:58:10 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.2958
Posted: Mon Nov  4 13:58:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 06:37:58 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 29

In response to Bjarne Stroustrup's message <4500@alice.UUCP>:

Let me make a few final remarks in this ongoing discussion about the relative
merits of C++ versus Modula-2.

(1) You still don't seem to have gotten my point that I was comparing Modula-2
    to C rather than C++.  I do get your point, though, namely that you think
    C++ is way better than Modula-2.  Let's hope you are right!  Maybe you
    could write a paper entitled "Why Modula-2 is not my favorite programming
    language" :-)

(2) If you try a little harder, you might even find definitions for the terms
    data abstraction etc. which only fit C++ and no other language :-)
    Moreover, in contrast to your opinion, it *is* possible to declare
    variables of an opaque type which are only accessible using a specific
    set of procedures declared in the same module.  The fact that, in the
    current implementations of Modula-2, variables of an opaque type are
    typically restricted to a size of 1 or 2 words which forces you to use
    a POINTER TO RECORD ... representation is just that:  An implementation
    restriction.  As far as "notational conveniences" are concerned, you are
    of course right again, but as you say, they are just conveniences ...

(3) As far as the date of appearance of Modula-2 is concerned, I was absolutely
    baffled to find that your quote from Wirth's book checked out.  All I can
    say is that I was at ETH at the time, that I do have the Modula-2 report
    quoted in my last message, and that its publishing date is December 1978.
    Why Niklaus Wirth is stating that the language's definition was published
    in March 1980 is completely beyond me.  I do admit that I was wrong about
    the public availability of the compilers.