[M3devel] [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[hendrik at topoi.pooq.com]

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:28:37AM -0500, Randy Coleburn wrote:
>  
> On another note, All this CYGWIN stuff may be a nice way for die-hard 
> Unix fans to run Modula-3 on Windows, and I have no objection to 
> providing it, as long as it does not compromise the native Windows 
> implementation.

It is useful to have a way to take Modula 3 programs from Unix to 
Windows with minimal change.  That said, Modula-3 is a system 
programming language, and it should be possible to program in a 
system-dependent way.  Do we need two Windows platforms, one native and 
one to run on a Unix-compatibility layer?  And while we're at it, do we 
need two Unix platforms, one native and one that runs via Wine?

>  My main concern is the native implementation of 
> Modula-3 on Windows.  My preference would be to keep the NT386 
> implementation's dependencies on other stuff to a bare minimum, i.e., 
> don't introduce anything that would require someone to have to acquire 
> something besides what comes in the standard Windows OS in order to 
> make Modula-3 run.  As it is now, we already have to get a C compiler 
> and linker.  Fortunately, Microsoft has made the Visual Studio Express 
> editions a free download, so this is not too bad.

Except that the free download won't work on old versions of Windows.
This is the  main reason why I have been unable in the past to use 
Modula 3 on Windows.  At the moment, though, an overriding reason is 
that I have no Windows machines available.

> I don't want to have to install CYGWIN either in order to make the 
> native implementation work on Windows.  I also still prefer the 
> CMINSTALL, CMD, or BAT files for install as opposed to having to get 
> Python or something else.  Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Finally, I would go a step further and suggest that the Modula-3 
> implementation on every platform should strive to require minimal 
> dependencies on anything not provided standard with that platform's 
> operating system.
>  
> Call me an idealist, but it just galls me that I have to have a C 
> compiler/linker to build Modula-3.  Modula-3 is a systems programming 
> language.  It should stand on its own.

It is not hard to write a linker in Modula-3.

>  From a purely economical 
> viewpoint, why should I have to buy something I don't want (C language 
> development environment) in order to have the privilege of using what 
> I do want (Modula-3 language development environment).

What's hard is making it compatible with existing proprietary linkers 
and loaders that are poorly documented and subject to change without 
notice.

>  
> Regards,
> Randy

-- hendrik