[M3devel] "target specific pragmas"?

[Mika Nystrom]

Jay writes:
>--_26c72f2f-07a7-4258-b083-944d52866fbb_
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>I'll try to repeat myself less and ramble less, and stay constructive...
>=20
>I understand that printf type unsafety stinks and I have been bitten by it,=
> but it is nicely terse, crude but effective, I'm going to throw away the c=
>ode probably once the bug is fixed. (Ok, I like to comment out or somehow d=
>isable sometimes maybe but that is a different point, it's still not the he=
>ight of production code; and yes, I realize it's a slippery slope and the n=
>ext thing I'll do is use it in production code; debugging is just what I'm =
>doing now, next up, real code).
>=20
>You can't just be the antithesis of C. You have to decide what it is about =
>C that is wrong and fix it or do it over.
>And then of course, agreement on what is wrong. I probably see less wrong t=
>han you.
>Bad module system -- #include.
>Bad module system -- preprocesor which kills or damages other efforts at la=
>nguage-aware tools.
>Beyond this, at the moment, I am unsure.

A few things I know I like about M3, and don't exist in the C languages, are:

* enumerated types that work well

* integer subranges

* arrays(!!)

* arrays indexed by enumerations and subranges

* absence of name mangling problems (I'm willing to accept Quake in return)

* the ability to add code/declarations/types to ANY interface and
  not have it break a program.  NO OTHER LANGUAGE (that I've heard
  of) HAS THIS PROPERTY.

* a lot of other Java-ish properties, without being Java.

>I have "argued for" C++ for further "problems" in C, but I have "grown" (or=
> shrunk? :) ) to appreciate that C might not be as bad as I used to think.
>=20
>If you start over completely from scratch, you should still look at what is=
> out there.
>Granted, some things are mostly arbitrary. Braces vs. begin/end. But the ed=
>itors all support braces now.
>Until you get me to change editors (probably never), Modula-3 is always goi=
>ng to be less convenient.
>At this point you are just fighting the vast majority (except Python...). I=
>t could have gone differently, but C won.

Yes it's a lot easier to code M3 in emacs... modula3.el is a wonderful little
thing to have.

>=20
>If you ignore that lowest level thing, there are places where Modula-3 is p=
>erfectly good, but doesn't take the next step.
>A good example I think here is it has nice "objects", however it requires t=
>hey be heap allocated I think even in unsafe code. You should be able stack=
> (or global) allocate something with "virtual functions". It seems an arbit=
>rary limitation. I realize in safe code, you have to heap allocate more any=
>way, but that is a different point I think.

Not even C++ has virtual methods in stack-allocated objects does
it?  If there's a language that has a lot of arbitrary limitations
in this area it's C++.  It's kind of funny: if you know Modula-3,
you start by wondering how C++ implements X, where X is a feature
you would like but M3 lacks, and then you find that while C++ does
indeed implement X', that is, X in a restricted sense, it does
actually not implement X in the full generality you'd like.  And
for the same reasons that M3 doesn't touch it in the first place.
Stack-allocated objects are an example of this.  If you want
stack-allocated data structures, use a RECORD and a PROCEDURE.  That
will give you almost exactly the same thing that a stack-allocated
object gives you in C++!

>=20
>Similarly is "multiple inheritance just of interfaces". I realize though..t=
>his hides a "vtable per interface". Maybe is much more expensive than peopl=
>e realize and shouldn't be provided lightly.
>=20
>SUBARRAY is probably example where I don't/didn't know the language well en=
>ough.
>  And maybe the docs aren't good here.
>And VAR/BEGIN.
>Maybe I just need to reread Nelson's book. You know..reference vs. tutorial=
>. The language reference is very very terse and that is ok. Short on exampl=
>es. A tutorial that gives many examples might be good. Hey maybe I'm just t=
>he newbie in a good position to write it. (not)

Try Harbison's book?  Or read a lot of the SRC code.  Some of it
is quite beautiful.

About C++: do you *really* know C++?  I was reading Stroustrup's
book a while back and after reading four or five times "if you want
to try this, ask an experienced colleague first" I gave up in disgust
on trying to understand C++.  There are so many odd little ways you
can go wrong in C++.  Sometimes assigning an object to a variable
causes your program to break in mysterious and horrible ways,
sometimes...  C++ programmers also tend to underestimate how effective
garbage collection is in simplifying things.  This is different
from saying "garbage collection helps you avoid memory management
errors" (because you say "I am a competent C++ programmer, I never
make memory management errors").  Garbage collection lets you
structure your code in ways that simply is not possible if you have
to worry about which part of it is going to allocate and which part
is going to deallocate memory.

The last and probably biggest advantage of M3 over C++ is that you
can look at a program and immediately know what it means.  And also
know that it *can't* mean anything else.  The programmer couldn't,
even if he was maximally sadistic, have overloaded equals to mean
not-equals, right shift to mean left shift, and left shift to mean
increment.  C++ lets you do this, and there are a large number of
programmers out there who seemingly take advantage of every language
feature they can get their hands on that lets them obscure their
programs.

I would summarize it as follows.  Modula-3 and C++ let you compile
almost exactly the same machine code.  Apart from that, Modula-3
does it in a way that lets you write safe programs, and C++ does
it in a way that lets you write obscure programs.  

Something that has become increasingly clear to me is that Modula-3
and C++ live in something of a desert.  There are very few modern
programming languages that are as "close to the machine" as these
two.  All the work that people do today (that gets any attention)
is in things like Java (which is incredibly complicated, have you
ever tried to compile HotSpot?) and Python (which is all right but
incredibly inefficient).  The more academic languages like ML and
things like Self... well I won't even say anything about those.  If
you want a safe language that works with traditional compiler tools,
Modula-3 is just about the only one out there.

Finally, there is something about Randy's comment that's very true.
Modula-3 is a "dead language".  People that "still" use it are going
to be fanatics about why they use it, rather than C or C++.  If you
are asked what programming language you use for development, and
you answer "Modula-3" people will almost always look at you like
you're crazy.  We do indeed use it because it is very different
from C and C++, or else we would have saved ourselves a LOT of
trouble (I forget just how many existing C and C++ libraries and
tools I have reimplemented just so I could stay in Modula-3) by
just going with the crowd.

    Mika

>=20
>I guess I should be in comp.lang.c.advocacy. :)
>=20
>To a large extent I'm just looking for a small smart group to have a friend=
>ly intellectual discussion with.
>(and of course, don't mess up their code)
>=20
> - Jay
>
>
>
>> CC: jayk123 at hotmail.com; m3devel at elegosoft.com> From: darko at darko.org> To=
>: rcoleburn at scires.com> Subject: Re: [M3devel] "target specific pragmas"?> =
>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:10:18 +1100> > I actually see some benefit to Jay=
>'s postings since they make us > examine some of the differences between M3=
> and C and explain the > benefits. These questions might be asked by any C =
>programmer > approaching the M3 language. It may be the point that Jay hasn=
>'t > created and serious software in M3 and needs to be informed of the > b=
>enefits. I've seen some good responses along these lines from members > of =
>the list.> > But Randy does have a valid point. M3 is is not just different=
> to C, > it's the antithesis of C. It's everything C isn't and the language=
> > designers went to great lengths to make it this way. It's why most of > =
>us use the language.> > I certainly wouldn't like to drive anyone away beca=
>use they have a > different point of view, but it may be a good idea to exa=
>mine problems > and solutions more closely and offer other solutions that '=
>why not do > it like C'.> > In the case of printf, it is useful, when debug=
>ging especially, and > I've created some code which takes a list of refany =
>parameters and > prints them out. It is a bit inefficient since any 'atomic=
>' values > such as integers need to be allocated but it also prints out all=
> the > fields of structures and arrays. But it is completely safe. If there=
> > were a need for a more efficient way to generated formatted strings, > I=
>'d write something else more efficient but also configurable since > embedd=
>ing fixed strings in your code is generally a a bad idea.> > > On 14/02/200=
>8, at 4:44 AM, Randy Coleburn wrote:> > > Jay:> >> > I don't want to be off=
>ensive, but quite frankly I'm tired of > > continually reading your gripes =
>about Modula-3 as a language and > > your pining for C.> >> > This forum is=
> for those people interested in advancing the state of > > Modula-3. We don=
>'t care about C/C++/C#/etc in this forum. Those of > > us who are M3 zealot=
>s for the most part probably would welcome any > > move to divest CM3 of al=
>l underpinnings from the C world.> >> > Have you seriously studied the Modu=
>la-3 language and used it to > > build production software? I think some of=
> your comments suggest > > that you are not a true Modula-3 programmer and =
>that you still cling > > to the C-way of doing things rather than embracing=
> the Modula-3 way.> >> > Now, I do think that most people are interested in=
> improving things > > and no language is perfect, so any well-thought-out p=
>roposal for a > > change to the language is welcome for consideration, But =
>in this > > mail list forum, I for one would appreciate less ranting about =
>C and > > more constructive Modula-3.> >> > Truly, I do not want to offend =
>you. Maybe I'm just having a bad > > day, but I encourage you to try and fo=
>cus your posts to the > > advancement of Modula-3.> >> > Regards,> > Randy>=
> >> > >>> Jay <jayk123 at hotmail.com> 2/12/2008 11:28 PM >>>> > > >My princip=
>le concern is that once we provide C APIs then C will> > > >permeate the M3=
> space more pervasively (both apps and libraries).> >> > This is somewhat m=
>y point.> > When I am debugging, I really miss printf.> >> > The debugging =
>options seem really poor everywhere and esp. on NT386.> >> > gdb has all wi=
>erded out variable names for one thing.> > And I think we should fix it so =
>that that the symbols have full > > source paths.> > I realize they would o=
>nly be correct on one machine, and hopefully > > there's a decent story for=
> copying the files.> > Yeah, I know about "dir" but haven't yet formed a .g=
>dbinit or whatnot.> >> > Other than printf'ing, I also end up getting a sta=
>ck in cdb with no > > symbols and then disasm in gdb to find what the funct=
>ions were. That > > works fine a few times, but I hope not to do it often. =
>Somewhat > > lucky I could even get a stack. Because, see, cdb is nice enou=
>gh to > > stop on access violations by default (such as the time/date code =
>was > > causing). gdb has a promising sounding feature, the ability to stop=
> > > on "signals", which I think an access violation would count as, oh, > =
>> but that feature isn't implemented, sorry. Ok, true, think about it > > m=
>ore and I can break on the toplevel exception handler in > > cygwin1.dll, n=
>ot sure that always works or not, it's an > > implementation detail, but he=
>ck, when you are debugging, take > > advantage of whatever you have. :)> >>=
> > RTIO, is too verbose for me.> > But darnit, I can't really have printf..=
>puts is about the best I > > could do..> > Oh, but no, since TEXT !=3D char=
>* even that isn't useful.> > fread/fwrite maybe though.> >> > On a differen=
>t hand (how many are there? :) ), have you looked in > > m3core\src\unix?> =
>> There is just tons of dead stuff, stuff with comments about it > > perhap=
>s being wrong, "use with care".> > It seemed to me maybe the point was to e=
>xpose "all" of /usr/include.> > Someone, other than me, sure seems to have =
>gone overboard, like > > someone using Ultrix and Linux 1.x, and then it co=
>pied around.> > Heck, look at the mem* functions being commented out (and p=
>robably > > using the incorrect type int) because Ultrix or somesuch didn't=
> have > > them. I uncommented them to fix a build. And notice that these > =
>> functions, again, like most of printf, are /extremely/ portable in > > fu=
>nctionality and exact binary interface (yeah yeah, I've heard of > > bcopy =
>and bzero).> >> > What there was of Cstdio.i3 seemed very possibly wrong, a=
>t least on > > many targets, and very doubtfully useful for anything, and I=
> think > > I've now shown unused.> >> > > Y, the easiest way to implement t=
>he interface is to call a C > > function> > > that "just happens" to have t=
>he correct interface. But on another> >> > But wrapping everything in Modul=
>a-3 is so tedious...> > Oh for all languages to just understand C headers s=
>o we can stop > > rewriting them...> > Or some other language, ok...not goi=
>ng to be solved in this forum.> > To go the unpopular route (again), MS CLR=
>/.NET among many other > > things, attempts to solve this very problem.> > =
>One way to describe "interfaces" that "all" languages can > > understand...=
>at least for some subset of languages features..> >> > Just as tedious btw,=
> it is often more portable to wrap all the C > > APIs in C, exposing a port=
>able controled Modula-3 interface > > independent of the precise header con=
>tent. Like errno and my > > get_stderr/out/in.> >> > - Jay> >> >> > > To: h=
>osking at cs.purdue.edu> > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:37:43 -0800> > > From: =
>mika at async.caltech.edu> > > CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com> > > Subject: Re: [M3=
>devel] "target specific pragmas"?> > >> > >> > > This is also an excellent =
>reason not to permit "interfaces" to C> > > code inlined into MODULEs.> > >=
>> > > Interfaces are the contract that the implementation has to live up> >=
> > to. Ok, so it happens that under operating system X on architecture> > >=
> Y, the easiest way to implement the interface is to call a C > > function>=
> > > that "just happens" to have the correct interface. But on another> > >=
> system, which either isn't built in C or where the function doesn't> > > e=
>xist, it might be convenient to implement the interface in (gasp!)> > > Mod=
>ula-3!> > >> > > (I use this pattern as follows: on systems where Intel's F=
>ortran> > > compiler is available, compile from assembly (which was generat=
>ed> > > by ifort). On other systems, the code is implemented in Modula-3.)>=
> > >> > > Mika> > >> > > Tony Hosking writes:> > > >My principle concern is=
> that once we provide C APIs then C will> > > >permeate the M3 space more p=
>ervasively (both apps and libraries).> > > >What happens when I want to bri=
>ng up a system where there is no> > > >C?!?! Consider the SPIN OS perhaps..=
>.> > > >> > > >Maybe I am just being overly fusty...> > > >> > > >On Feb 12=
>, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Dragi=C5=A1a Duri=C4? wrote:> > > >> > > >> What we _ma=
>ybe_ can do... is to make some special, preprocessable> > > >> source> > > =
>>> form, which some quake command can parse into multiple files in > > thei=
>r> > > >> folders. And these file can be compiled later...Kind of how > > g=
>eneric> > > >> works.> > > >>> > > >> But, as current system works, and it =
>does it very well, and as > > only> > > >> case> > > >> where we really nee=
>d this is Windows... most Unices being or > > becoming> > > >> POSIX... I d=
>on't see it's smart to spend resources on becoming > > more> > > >> C...> >=
> > >> Esp when "founding fathers" made it so good and so much non-C :).> > =
>> >>> > > >> If we really need to make some approach to "their world", it's=
> > > much> > > >> better to work on interoperability issues and thus cement=
> our> > > >> first-class-citizen language status even more.> > > >>> > > >>=
> dd> > > >>> > > >> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:16 -0500, Randy Coleburn wrote=
>:> > > >>> Jay:> > > >>>> > > >>> My understanding of Modula-3 is that rath=
>er than cluttering up > > the> > > >>> source code with a bunch of preproce=
>ssor directives to deal > > with the> > > >>> various changes needed by var=
>ious platforms, a separate source> > > >>> file is> > > >>> used for platfo=
>rms whose implementation must diverge. The > > m3makefile> > > >>> is used =
>to control the selection of these platform sources at > > build> > > >>> ti=
>me. I like this approach much better.> > > >>>> > > >>> Regards,> > > >>> R=
>andy> > > >>>> > > >>>>>> Jay <jayk123 at hotmail.com> 2/11/2008 8:21 PM >>>> =
>> > >>> So I have NOT thought this through.> > > >>>> > > >>> I wonder if "=
>preprocessing" dependent only on "target" is a good> > > >>> idea.> > > >>>=
>> > > >>> Something like either the ability to prefix pragmas with a > > ta=
>rget, or> > > >>> an "iftarget" and "ifnottarget" pragma.> > > >>>> > > >>>=
> Something like so:> > > >>>> > > >>> <* IF_TARGET NT386 *>> > > >>> <* END=
>_IF_TARGET*>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> <* IF_TARGET NT386 *>> > > >>> <* E=
>ND_IF_TARGET*>> > > >>> It's a small can of worms.> > > >>> Where can they =
>be placed? Only at "global" scope? (ie: > > toplevel in an> > > >>> interfa=
>ce/module).> > > >>>> > > >>> What about IF_OSTYPE?> > > >>> What about exp=
>ressions?> > > >>> IF_TARGET NT386 OR NTAMD64> > > >>>> > > >>> IF_TARGET S=
>TARTS(NT)> > > >>>> > > >>> etc.> > > >>>> > > >>> I don't really have enou=
>gh interest here to work through this, > > just> > > >>> sending out the ba=
>it...> > > >>>> > > >>> Obviously this was triggered by my happening into t=
>he odbc > > directory> > > >>> and bringing up ignoring WINAPI on non-NT386=
> or prefixing > > calling> > > >>> conventions with a target.> > > >>>> > >=
> >>> This reminds me of an important point here however -- nobody > > else =
>is> > > >>> going to make the mistake of ever having multiple calling> > > =
>>>> conventions.> > > >>> Therefore the generality of prefixing WINAPI with=
> NT386: is > > useless.> > > >>> Unless Mac68K support is added.> > > >>>> =
>> > >>> And here is some rationale even. The PC and Mac evolved from > > "s=
>mall"> > > >>> systems, where assembly programming was common, more people =
>> > knew more> > > >>> lower level details and playing games with calling c=
>onventions > > was> > > >>> something anyone could do. Most other current s=
>ystems are > > rooted in C> > > >>> programming. Working in C, calling conv=
>entions are generally > > in a> > > >>> hidden layer below what anyone thin=
>ks about. Therefore, the > > smaller> > > >>> number of capable people work=
>ing at that level have the good > > sense to> > > >>> only have one calling=
> convention. No more systems will evolve > > from> > > >>> "small", at leas=
>t not without having observed this history.> > > >>> Therefore,> > > >>> th=
>ere will no longer be multiple calling conventions.> > > >>>> > > >>> That =
>is my theory at least.> > > >>>> > > >>> Oh, Windows does also have __thisc=
>all and __clrcall. > > __thiscall is> > > >>> only x86> > > >> --> > > >> D=
>ragi=C5=A1a Duri=C4? <dragisha at m3w.org>> >> >> > Connect and share in new w=
>ays with Windows Live. Get it now!>=20
>_________________________________________________________________
>Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
>http://biggestloser.msn.com/=
>
>--_26c72f2f-07a7-4258-b083-944d52866fbb_
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><html>
><head>
><style>
>.hmmessage P
>{
>margin:0px;
>padding:0px
>}
>body.hmmessage
>{
>FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
>FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
>}
></style>
></head>
><body class=3D'hmmessage'>I'll <EM>try </EM>to repeat myself less and rambl=
>e less, and stay constructive...<BR>
> <BR>
>I understand that printf type unsafety stinks and I have been bitten by it,=
> but it is nicely terse, crude but effective, I'm going to throw away the c=
>ode probably once the bug is fixed. (Ok, I like to comment out or somehow d=
>isable sometimes maybe but that is a different point, it's still not the he=
>ight of production code; and yes, I realize it's a slippery slope and the n=
>ext thing I'll do is use it in production code; debugging is just what I'm =
>doing now, next up, real code).<BR>
> <BR>
>You can't just be the antithesis of C. You have to decide what it is about =
>C that is wrong and fix it or do it over.<BR>
>And then of course, agreement on what is wrong. I probably see less wrong t=
>han you.<BR>
>Bad module system -- #include.<BR>
>Bad module system -- preprocesor which kills or damages other efforts at la=
>nguage-aware tools.<BR>
>Beyond this, at the moment, I am unsure.<BR>
>I have "argued for" C++ for further "problems" in C, but I have "grown" (or=
> shrunk? :) ) to appreciate that C might not be as bad as I used to think.<=
>BR>
> <BR>
>If you start over completely from scratch, you should still look at what is=
> out there.<BR>
>Granted, some things are mostly arbitrary. Braces vs. begin/end. But the ed=
>itors all support braces now.<BR>
>Until you get me to change editors (probably never), Modula-3 is always goi=
>ng to be less convenient.<BR>
>At this point you are just fighting the vast majority (except Python...). I=
>t could have gone differently, but C won.<BR>
> <BR>
>If you ignore that lowest level thing, there are places where Modula-3 is p=
>erfectly good, but doesn't take the next step.<BR>
>A good example I think here is it has nice "objects", however it requires t=
>hey be heap allocated I think even in unsafe code. You should be able stack=
> (or global) allocate something with "virtual functions". It seems an arbit=
>rary limitation. I realize in safe code, you have to heap allocate more any=
>way, but that is a different point I think.<BR>
> <BR>
>Similarly is "multiple inheritance just of interfaces". I realize though..t=
>his hides a "vtable per interface". Maybe is much more expensive than peopl=
>e realize and shouldn't be provided lightly.<BR>
> <BR>
>SUBARRAY is probably example where I don't/didn't know the language well en=
>ough.<BR>
>  And maybe the docs aren't good here.<BR>
>And VAR/BEGIN.<BR>
>Maybe I just need to reread Nelson's book. You know..reference vs. tutorial=
>. The language reference is very very terse and that is ok. Short on exampl=
>es. A tutorial that gives many examples might be good. Hey maybe I'm just t=
>he newbie in a good position to write it. (not)<BR>
> <BR>
>I guess I should be in comp.lang.c.advocacy. :)<BR>
> <BR>
>To a large extent I'm just looking for a small smart group to have a friend=
>ly intellectual discussion with.<BR>
>(and of course, don't mess up their code)<BR>
> <BR>
> - Jay<BR><BR><BR>
>
><HR id=3DstopSpelling>
><BR>
>> CC: jayk123 at hotmail.com; m3devel at elegosoft.com<BR>> From: darko at dar=
>ko.org<BR>> To: rcoleburn at scires.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] "tar=
>get specific pragmas"?<BR>> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:10:18 +1100<BR>&gt=
>; <BR>> I actually see some benefit to Jay's postings since they make us=
> <BR>> examine some of the differences between M3 and C and explain the =
><BR>> benefits. These questions might be asked by any C programmer <BR>&=
>gt; approaching the M3 language. It may be the point that Jay hasn't <BR>&g=
>t; created and serious software in M3 and needs to be informed of the <BR>&=
>gt; benefits. I've seen some good responses along these lines from members =
><BR>> of the list.<BR>> <BR>> But Randy does have a valid point. M=
>3 is is not just different to C, <BR>> it's the antithesis of C. It's ev=
>erything C isn't and the language <BR>> designers went to great lengths =
>to make it this way. It's why most of <BR>> us use the language.<BR>>=
> <BR>> I certainly wouldn't like to drive anyone away because they have =
>a <BR>> different point of view, but it may be a good idea to examine pr=
>oblems <BR>> and solutions more closely and offer other solutions that '=
>why not do <BR>> it like C'.<BR>> <BR>> In the case of printf, it =
>is useful, when debugging especially, and <BR>> I've created some code w=
>hich takes a list of refany parameters and <BR>> prints them out. It is =
>a bit inefficient since any 'atomic' values <BR>> such as integers need =
>to be allocated but it also prints out all the <BR>> fields of structure=
>s and arrays. But it is completely safe. If there <BR>> were a need for =
>a more efficient way to generated formatted strings, <BR>> I'd write som=
>ething else more efficient but also configurable since <BR>> embedding f=
>ixed strings in your code is generally a a bad idea.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>&=
>gt; On 14/02/2008, at 4:44 AM, Randy Coleburn wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > =
>Jay:<BR>> ><BR>> > I don't want to be offensive, but quite fran=
>kly I'm tired of <BR>> > continually reading your gripes about Modula=
>-3 as a language and <BR>> > your pining for C.<BR>> ><BR>> =
>> This forum is for those people interested in advancing the state of <B=
>R>> > Modula-3. We don't care about C/C++/C#/etc in this forum. Those=
> of <BR>> > us who are M3 zealots for the most part probably would we=
>lcome any <BR>> > move to divest CM3 of all underpinnings from the C =
>world.<BR>> ><BR>> > Have you seriously studied the Modula-3 la=
>nguage and used it to <BR>> > build production software? I think some=
> of your comments suggest <BR>> > that you are not a true Modula-3 pr=
>ogrammer and that you still cling <BR>> > to the C-way of doing thing=
>s rather than embracing the Modula-3 way.<BR>> ><BR>> > Now, I =
>do think that most people are interested in improving things <BR>> > =
>and no language is perfect, so any well-thought-out proposal for a <BR>>=
> > change to the language is welcome for consideration, But in this <BR>=
>> > mail list forum, I for one would appreciate less ranting about C =
>and <BR>> > more constructive Modula-3.<BR>> ><BR>> > Tru=
>ly, I do not want to offend you. Maybe I'm just having a bad <BR>> > =
>day, but I encourage you to try and focus your posts to the <BR>> > a=
>dvancement of Modula-3.<BR>> ><BR>> > Regards,<BR>> > Ran=
>dy<BR>> ><BR>> > >>> Jay <jayk123 at hotmail.com> 2=
>/12/2008 11:28 PM >>><BR>> > > >My principle concern i=
>s that once we provide C APIs then C will<BR>> > > >permeate th=
>e M3 space more pervasively (both apps and libraries).<BR>> ><BR>>=
> > This is somewhat my point.<BR>> > When I am debugging, I really=
> miss printf.<BR>> ><BR>> > The debugging options seem really p=
>oor everywhere and esp. on NT386.<BR>> ><BR>> > gdb has all wie=
>rded out variable names for one thing.<BR>> > And I think we should f=
>ix it so that that the symbols have full <BR>> > source paths.<BR>&gt=
>; > I realize they would only be correct on one machine, and hopefully <=
>BR>> > there's a decent story for copying the files.<BR>> > Yea=
>h, I know about "dir" but haven't yet formed a .gdbinit or whatnot.<BR>>=
> ><BR>> > Other than printf'ing, I also end up getting a stack in =
>cdb with no <BR>> > symbols and then disasm in gdb to find what the f=
>unctions were. That <BR>> > works fine a few times, but I hope not to=
> do it often. Somewhat <BR>> > lucky I could even get a stack. Becaus=
>e, see, cdb is nice enough to <BR>> > stop on access violations by de=
>fault (such as the time/date code was <BR>> > causing). gdb has a pro=
>mising sounding feature, the ability to stop <BR>> > on "signals", wh=
>ich I think an access violation would count as, oh, <BR>> > but that =
>feature isn't implemented, sorry. Ok, true, think about it <BR>> > mo=
>re and I can break on the toplevel exception handler in <BR>> > cygwi=
>n1.dll, not sure that always works or not, it's an <BR>> > implementa=
>tion detail, but heck, when you are debugging, take <BR>> > advantage=
> of whatever you have. :)<BR>> ><BR>> > RTIO, is too verbose fo=
>r me.<BR>> > But darnit, I can't really have printf..puts is about th=
>e best I <BR>> > could do..<BR>> > Oh, but no, since TEXT !=3D =
>char* even that isn't useful.<BR>> > fread/fwrite maybe though.<BR>&g=
>t; ><BR>> > On a different hand (how many are there? :) ), have yo=
>u looked in <BR>> > m3core\src\unix?<BR>> > There is just tons =
>of dead stuff, stuff with comments about it <BR>> > perhaps being wro=
>ng, "use with care".<BR>> > It seemed to me maybe the point was to ex=
>pose "all" of /usr/include.<BR>> > Someone, other than me, sure seems=
> to have gone overboard, like <BR>> > someone using Ultrix and Linux =
>1.x, and then it copied around.<BR>> > Heck, look at the mem* functio=
>ns being commented out (and probably <BR>> > using the incorrect type=
> int) because Ultrix or somesuch didn't have <BR>> > them. I uncommen=
>ted them to fix a build. And notice that these <BR>> > functions, aga=
>in, like most of printf, are /extremely/ portable in <BR>> > function=
>ality and exact binary interface (yeah yeah, I've heard of <BR>> > bc=
>opy and bzero).<BR>> ><BR>> > What there was of Cstdio.i3 seeme=
>d very possibly wrong, at least on <BR>> > many targets, and very dou=
>btfully useful for anything, and I think <BR>> > I've now shown unuse=
>d.<BR>> ><BR>> > > Y, the easiest way to implement the inter=
>face is to call a C <BR>> > function<BR>> > > that "just hap=
>pens" to have the correct interface. But on another<BR>> ><BR>> &g=
>t; But wrapping everything in Modula-3 is so tedious...<BR>> > Oh for=
> all languages to just understand C headers so we can stop <BR>> > re=
>writing them...<BR>> > Or some other language, ok...not going to be s=
>olved in this forum.<BR>> > To go the unpopular route (again), MS CLR=
>/.NET among many other <BR>> > things, attempts to solve this very pr=
>oblem.<BR>> > One way to describe "interfaces" that "all" languages c=
>an <BR>> > understand...at least for some subset of languages feature=
>s..<BR>> ><BR>> > Just as tedious btw, it is often more portabl=
>e to wrap all the C <BR>> > APIs in C, exposing a portable controled =
>Modula-3 interface <BR>> > independent of the precise header content.=
> Like errno and my <BR>> > get_stderr/out/in.<BR>> ><BR>> &g=
>t; - Jay<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > > To: hosking at cs.purdue.=
>edu<BR>> > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:37:43 -0800<BR>> > &g=
>t; From: mika at async.caltech.edu<BR>> > > CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com=
><BR>> > > Subject: Re: [M3devel] "target specific pragmas"?<BR>&gt=
>; > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > This is also an excellent r=
>eason not to permit "interfaces" to C<BR>> > > code inlined into M=
>ODULEs.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Interfaces are the contract tha=
>t the implementation has to live up<BR>> > > to. Ok, so it happens=
> that under operating system X on architecture<BR>> > > Y, the eas=
>iest way to implement the interface is to call a C <BR>> > function<B=
>R>> > > that "just happens" to have the correct interface. But on =
>another<BR>> > > system, which either isn't built in C or where th=
>e function doesn't<BR>> > > exist, it might be convenient to imple=
>ment the interface in (gasp!)<BR>> > > Modula-3!<BR>> > >=
><BR>> > > (I use this pattern as follows: on systems where Intel's=
> Fortran<BR>> > > compiler is available, compile from assembly (wh=
>ich was generated<BR>> > > by ifort). On other systems, the code i=
>s implemented in Modula-3.)<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Mika<BR>&gt=
>; > ><BR>> > > Tony Hosking writes:<BR>> > > >My=
> principle concern is that once we provide C APIs then C will<BR>> > =
>> >permeate the M3 space more pervasively (both apps and libraries).<=
>BR>> > > >What happens when I want to bring up a system where t=
>here is no<BR>> > > >C?!?! Consider the SPIN OS perhaps...<BR>&=
>gt; > > ><BR>> > > >Maybe I am just being overly fusty=
>...<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > >On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:35 P=
>M, Dragi=C5=A1a Duri=C4? wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > &g=
>t;> What we _maybe_ can do... is to make some special, preprocessable<BR=
>>> > > >> source<BR>> > > >> form, which some=
> quake command can parse into multiple files in <BR>> > their<BR>>=
> > > >> folders. And these file can be compiled later...Kind of=
> how <BR>> > generic<BR>> > > >> works.<BR>> > &=
>gt; >><BR>> > > >> But, as current system works, and i=
>t does it very well, and as <BR>> > only<BR>> > > >> c=
>ase<BR>> > > >> where we really need this is Windows... most=
> Unices being or <BR>> > becoming<BR>> > > >> POSIX...=
> I don't see it's smart to spend resources on becoming <BR>> > more<B=
>R>> > > >> C...<BR>> > > >> Esp when "foundin=
>g fathers" made it so good and so much non-C :).<BR>> > > >>=
><BR>> > > >> If we really need to make some approach to "the=
>ir world", it's <BR>> > much<BR>> > > >> better to wor=
>k on interoperability issues and thus cement our<BR>> > > >>=
> first-class-citizen language status even more.<BR>> > > >><=
>BR>> > > >> dd<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > =
>>> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:16 -0500, Randy Coleburn wrote:<BR>> &=
>gt; > >>> Jay:<BR>> > > >>><BR>> > >=
> >>> My understanding of Modula-3 is that rather than cluttering u=
>p <BR>> > the<BR>> > > >>> source code with a bunch=
> of preprocessor directives to deal <BR>> > with the<BR>> > &gt=
>; >>> various changes needed by various platforms, a separate sour=
>ce<BR>> > > >>> file is<BR>> > > >>> us=
>ed for platforms whose implementation must diverge. The <BR>> > m3mak=
>efile<BR>> > > >>> is used to control the selection of th=
>ese platform sources at <BR>> > build<BR>> > > >>> =
>time. I like this approach much better.<BR>> > > >>><BR>&=
>gt; > > >>> Regards,<BR>> > > >>> Randy<BR=
>>> > > >>><BR>> > > >>>>>> Jay=
> <jayk123 at hotmail.com> 2/11/2008 8:21 PM >>><BR>> > &g=
>t; >>> So I have NOT thought this through.<BR>> > > >&=
>gt;><BR>> > > >>> I wonder if "preprocessing" dependen=
>t only on "target" is a good<BR>> > > >>> idea.<BR>> &=
>gt; > >>><BR>> > > >>> Something like either =
>the ability to prefix pragmas with a <BR>> > target, or<BR>> > =
>> >>> an "iftarget" and "ifnottarget" pragma.<BR>> > >=
> >>><BR>> > > >>> Something like so:<BR>> &gt=
>; > >>><BR>> > > >>> <* IF_TARGET NT386 *&=
>gt;<BR>> > > >>> <* END_IF_TARGET*><BR>> > &g=
>t; >>><BR>> > > >>><BR>> > > >>&g=
>t; <* IF_TARGET NT386 *><BR>> > > >>> <* END_IF_=
>TARGET*><BR>> > > >>> It's a small can of worms.<BR>&g=
>t; > > >>> Where can they be placed? Only at "global" scope?=
> (ie: <BR>> > toplevel in an<BR>> > > >>> interface=
>/module).<BR>> > > >>><BR>> > > >>> Wha=
>t about IF_OSTYPE?<BR>> > > >>> What about expressions?<B=
>R>> > > >>> IF_TARGET NT386 OR NTAMD64<BR>> > > =
>>>><BR>> > > >>> IF_TARGET STARTS(NT)<BR>> &g=
>t; > >>><BR>> > > >>> etc.<BR>> > > =
>>>><BR>> > > >>> I don't really have enough inte=
>rest here to work through this, <BR>> > just<BR>> > > >&g=
>t;> sending out the bait...<BR>> > > >>><BR>> > =
>> >>> Obviously this was triggered by my happening into the odb=
>c <BR>> > directory<BR>> > > >>> and bringing up ig=
>noring WINAPI on non-NT386 or prefixing <BR>> > calling<BR>> > =
>> >>> conventions with a target.<BR>> > > >>>=
><BR>> > > >>> This reminds me of an important point here =
>however -- nobody <BR>> > else is<BR>> > > >>> goin=
>g to make the mistake of ever having multiple calling<BR>> > > &gt=
>;>> conventions.<BR>> > > >>> Therefore the general=
>ity of prefixing WINAPI with NT386: is <BR>> > useless.<BR>> > =
>> >>> Unless Mac68K support is added.<BR>> > > >&gt=
>;><BR>> > > >>> And here is some rationale even. The P=
>C and Mac evolved from <BR>> > "small"<BR>> > > >>>=
> systems, where assembly programming was common, more people <BR>> > =
>knew more<BR>> > > >>> lower level details and playing ga=
>mes with calling conventions <BR>> > was<BR>> > > >>&g=
>t; something anyone could do. Most other current systems are <BR>> > =
>rooted in C<BR>> > > >>> programming. Working in C, calli=
>ng conventions are generally <BR>> > in a<BR>> > > >>&=
>gt; hidden layer below what anyone thinks about. Therefore, the <BR>> &g=
>t; smaller<BR>> > > >>> number of capable people working =
>at that level have the good <BR>> > sense to<BR>> > > >&g=
>t;> only have one calling convention. No more systems will evolve <BR>&g=
>t; > from<BR>> > > >>> "small", at least not without h=
>aving observed this history.<BR>> > > >>> Therefore,<BR>&=
>gt; > > >>> there will no longer be multiple calling convent=
>ions.<BR>> > > >>><BR>> > > >>> That is=
> my theory at least.<BR>> > > >>><BR>> > > >&=
>gt;> Oh, Windows does also have __thiscall and __clrcall. <BR>> > =
>__thiscall is<BR>> > > >>> only x86<BR>> > > &gt=
>;> --<BR>> > > >> Dragi=C5=A1a Duri=C4? <dragisha at m3w.=
>org><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Connect and share in new way=
>s with Windows Live. Get it now!<BR>> <BR><BR><br /><hr />Shed those ext=
>ra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! <a href=3D'http://biggestloser.ms=
>n.com/' target=3D'_new'>Learn more.</a></body>
></html>=
>
>--_26c72f2f-07a7-4258-b083-944d52866fbb_--