10 Nov
2006
10 Nov
'06
10:04 a.m.
On 10 Nov 2006 at 10:32, Richard wrote:
Modula-2 most definatley wasn't object-oriented.
It was a procedural
language on steroids. Later extensions, sure, but not standard
Modula-2.
The problem, as in C, is the old "Which Modula-2"? Except that it's
worse.
There's the so-called "PIM" Modula-2, which, like K&R C, follows the
language described in a book written by Wirth, "Programming in Modula-
2". But there were several editions of this book, each describing a
slightly different language.
ISO tried to pull the language into a more-or-less standard form with
well-defined behavior, but the language described by the ISO standard
is somewhat different from that described in the PIM editions.
Something like ANSI C.
But ISO also described optional extensions to the language, and one
of those is a number of OO constructs.
So, if the question is "Does standard Modula-2 contain OO
extensions?", the answer is "yes--but it's not the language Wirth
described."
But then K&R doesn't describe ANSI C, either. :)
A very interesting open-source version of ISO Modula-2 exists for x86
that also allows the programmer to freely mix in Oberon statements:
http://www.excelsior-usa.com/xdsx86.html
Cheers,
Chuck