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.