[M3devel] Modula-3 questions

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
Threads are common use of Modula-3 Standard Interfaces because basically Modula-3 was born in Modula-2+ programming environments of multi-processor or mainframes (it was a kind of ahead of its time for real).
If you don't need Thread I guess you don't want to use several options like OS support (like Systems programming) and stuff, Modula-3 has its own environment for safe-threads (embedded) threads, though its use is not mandatory and not successful in any SMP environment (by default nowadays).
GUIs are not mandatory supported and constructed bottom up, if you want a new GUI system, you want a threaded one (that's Modula-2+ supposition since, you want not much overhead so be alerted in any event or for stronger distributed multi-window system like current Trestle is designed).
In any event, there is a KDevelop project of Modula-3 but that was quite some time ago. Though there is some support in Gtk, but again talking about a small size project that is overkilling, Gtk library dependencies on C makes a not want to develop for them, so avoid them right?
Simple languages are characterized by the smaller language definitions, this the case with C++, C, Java (the last two are called 'simple'), but spirit of Oberon was the same foundation of Modula-3, simpler is better, cleaner and still good support for better programming productivity (say Oberon for µ-controllers and small-footprint environments) so it gets rid of everything it can be too onerous (including big libraries and etc, but this days libraries and smaller memories are bigger than those days, so)
Also Oberon was designed for compiler designer, so you do the math.
Thanks in advance

--- El mié, 18/4/12, penn43 at gmx.com <penn43 at gmx.com> escribió:

> De: penn43 at gmx.com <penn43 at gmx.com>
> Asunto: [M3devel] Modula-3 questions
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: miércoles, 18 de abril, 2012 17:10
> Dear Modula-3 developers,
> 
> I am not a Modula-3 user, but I am considering becoming one.
> I have already had a look at the language, and it certainly
> looks interesting. However, I still have some misgivings
> about starting learning Modula-3, since it would be a
> considerable time investment and I am not even sure if
> Modula-3 is the right tool for me.
> I hope you can help me clarify some points and dispel some
> doubts.
> 
> The first point is that I would neither be working on large
> projects, nor doing systems programming. I understand these
> were the two major strengths of Modula-3, but neither would
> be useful in my case, as I would be programming mostly
> small- and medium-sized applications, not even
> industrial-level. What I need is simply a tool that can be
> used instead of C++ and Java. Modula-3 looks fine, because
> it promises to be simple. However, having read that Modula-3
> was designed especially for industrial-strength and advanced
> uses, I am afraid that adopting Modula-3 as my development
> tool might be an overkill. Could you advise me in this
> regard?
> 
> Secondly, could you please help me understand what are the
> reasons for which one may prefer Modula-3 over
> Oberon-2/Active Oberon? I have been considering Oberon too
> because, like Modula-3, it promises to be simple and
> minimalistic.
> So, again, keeping in mind that I don't need the advanced
> features mentioned above, nor multithreading, does it make
> any sense for me to choose Modula-3 instead of Oberon, or
> Object Pascal?
> 
> Lastly, what is the current availability of Modula-3
> libraries? I have read that Modula-3 has a rich set of
> libraries, but that was many years ago. Are there any
> up-to-date libraries, fulfilling today's needs? I am mostly
> interested in GUI support (possibly bindings to some
> standard GUI toolkit, like GTK or QT, or wxWidgets),
> internet libraries and UTF-8 support.
> 
> I thank you in advance.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marresh
> 
> P.S. is the creation and maintenance of module interfaces
> all that trouble? I read somewhere that it is a pain, and
> that the inconvenience of it would only be paid off when one
> has to manage large projects (which is not my case).
> 
>