[M3devel] Modula-3 questions

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
Interesting point but in original Modula [1], it was not that INTERFACE MODULEs were independent of, but monitors by them selves, and you could implement as you say, but later assumptions of that machines were not concurrent leave this concurrency out of the INTERFACEs.
I believe that further developing that idea deserved more research than it's now, the concept of Objects as concurrent message sender receivers.
Interestingly this the point of focus now on DDJ:
http://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/232602463?cid=DDJ_nl_upd_2012-03-13_h&elq=be9ea13b9a534650b9e132e93de1931e

The fact that the true roots of Modula's were in Mainframe machines if so, and before Object roots is appealing, o the idea is not original from them, though Some languages had featured Objects and messages before Small-talk way.

So those machines were Module-oriented rather Object-oriented as some thought that is the leading architecture of new parallel systems [2] (p. 3).

Thanks in advance

[1] S. A. Williams, Programming models for parallel systems. J. Wiley, 1990.

[2] R. Y. Kain, Computer architecture: software and hardware. Prentice Hall, 1989.


--- El jue, 19/4/12, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> escribió:

> De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] Modula-3 questions
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: jueves, 19 de abril, 2012 21:32
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:30:36PM
> +0100, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. wrote:
> >
> > Modula-3 modularity is more uniform from that.
> 
> The nice thing about Module 3's modularity is that it's
> completely 
> independent of procedures, object types, global variables,
> and all that.
> You can use the language the way you want to, and still be
> able to wrap 
> up whatever kind of module makes sense for your
> application.
> 
> -- hendrik
>