Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "Luke A. Guest" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Which comes first, languages or compilers? Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:35:50 +0000 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <23-10-014@comp.compilers> References: <23-10-008@comp.compilers> <23-10-011@comp.compilers> <23-10-012@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="97166"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: design, history, comment Posted-Date: 31 Oct 2023 07:06:06 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <23-10-012@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3541 On 30/10/2023 03:26, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > On 10/27/23 5:57 PM, Luke A. Guest wrote: > >> I don't really consider any of Wirth's languages to be designed as >> they would not have the gaping big holes they have. > > The *languages* are all well designed, That's not what the Oakwood guidelines say. system *libraries* are incomplete > or missing. Yes. [I'd prefer not to refight 30 year old arguments about language design details here. At this point Oberon is purely of historical interest and Pascal is close to dead. -John]