|
From: | Alice Osako |
Subject: | Re: Portability Considerations |
Date: | Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:36:35 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird |
While I said earlier that portability was desirable, this was before I knew much about the state of the language today. As such, I no longer consider portability as being worth the effort at this time, since quite frankly, supporting other compilers is well outside the scope of this project.
The fact is that I didn't set out to implement UNICODE for Modula-2; it came as a third-order requirement of what is after all a hobby project (an implementation of the MAL project) in which the choice of Modula-2 as the implementation language was as much from the fact that GCC now supported the language in the compiler trunk as it was the absence of an existing implementation in that language. The lack of proper editor support for Modula-2 led me to attempt to write a Language Server for it; this led to the need for a JSON parser; and the JSON parser in turn required UNICODE support.
It was never my intention to dive so deeply into this. The only reason I have continued with this at all is because I am hoping to learn from the process, both about Modula-2 and about the various technologies I am trying to implement.
As for PIM, now that I have a better idea of its history and limitations, I am entirely willing to write Wirth's book - in all editions - off as a legacy standard. It is no more relevant to new code in Modula-2 than K&R C or Ada-83 would be for new code in those languages. I can understand that it is very important for compiler support, or to someone maintaining existing PIM code, but for something written today it seems like a peculiar thing to be concerned about. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |