[M3devel] Think we need a new release.

[felipe valdez]

I recommend the video tutorial format, as I always have.


On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM,  <vintagecoder at aol.com> wrote:
>>> What is the purpose of a new release?
>>
>> from a technical perspective, probably not much but from a marketing
>> perspective (language adoption, language value perception), there could
>> be a few.
>
> I realize my opinion is not the majority, but I'm less inclined to like
> something that changes constantly or is popular. I try to find things that
> are well designed and work. Constant releases are not on my list of
> priorities.
>
>>> Are you talking about a major new version or a mod level or what? The
>>> last release on cm3 I see is from 2010.
>
>> this probably disproves the argument of "6 years between releases",
>> however, in the fast moving tech world, some people could consider 2010
>> to be a long time ago.
>
> Ok but anyone looking for Modula-3 should understand the history and
> realize they are not interested in the latest language, if they were, they
> wouldn't be in our group. I think that greatly lessens the impact of not
> having frequent or regular releases. It's one of the reasons I joined the
> development mailing list even though I probably have nothing to contribute
> as a developer. I wanted to see if the project is alive. For me is seems it
> is.
>
>>> Are there bug fixes in the pipeline that haven't been verified? Are
>>> there fixes ready to go that no builds have been done for? What is the
>>> problem more frequent releases will solve?
>
>> I think, it makes people perceive that the language has support, is being
>> actively developed, is growing , and also that it is not dead.
>
> For myself I was interested in those answers also, so I joined the mailing
> list. I saw from the releases the project is going ahead. I see from the
> fact they have so much platform support this is a serious and big project.
> I have seen many other famous projects without nearly as much platform
> support. I think anybody who is sincerely interested in Modula-3 can learn
> you guys are serious and work is happening.
>
>> I used to use tcl a lot, but I haven't got a new release in a while, and
>> 8.6 took forever (5 years?) to get done. this made me move away from the
>> technology, since I saw it at the time, as stagnating, stale, old and
>> unsupported.
>
> That is very interesting because as someone looking for a new scripting
> language, I found tcl very encouraging! I did the same thing as I did for
> Modula-3. I followed the newsgroups and I saw people are using it. I saw
> the releases and saw they are continuing to fix bugs. I don't need
> something new, I need something good. Of course it's important the project
> is alive and well so I don't find something good but dead. I saw tcl has
> native support for sqlite and other interesting features. To me it looks
> very much alive.
>
>> had they put a "new" brand on it ever so often, I would have been more
>> insterested.
>
> Ok but I think at some point people have to break the myth of constant
> change as something favorable.
>
>> in general terms, once you know perl 5.10, would you be more exicet about
>> learning perl 6.0 or 5.10.1 ? I mean, seriously, who gives a damn about a
>> 0.0.1 release anyway?
>
> It's not my view. I'm personally more happy with evolutionary growth. If
> something isn't any good, I don't use it (unless I have to for work!) If
> something is good, it doesn't need major changes, and changes are what
> usually make things worse, not better. I realize my view might not be so
> popular, but this is my view.
>
>> the problem I see a new release would solve, is that you get to fix stuff
>> (like the string broken stuff) that needs fixing, without having to
>> maintain 100% backwards compatibility, this can lead to a cleaner
>> language, like python3000 broke a lot of things, for instance.
>
> I don't know Modula-3 (trying to learn it) enough to say what is broken.
> But I do get nervous when I hear people say backwards compatibility isn't
> important, and stands in the way of the future. For that I say if that is
> really true, a group of people who really understand these things need to
> carefully decide whether the language spec is broken or whether the
> implementation is broken or both. And it has to be addressed based on the
> outcome of that discussion, not by taking the situation too lightly. Just
> to give you some idea of why I am saying this is because most of the
> software I work on is 20 or more years old and I saw the value in having
> experts who understand the purpose and the foundation involved in deciding
> whether a new feature is good or not. Sometimes something looks very good
> but it goes against the core direction. In this case a hard decision has to
> be made to fork the product, or develop a new version. For a language it's
> a very very serious process. If the spec is broken then perhaps it's time
> to develop a new language as Daniel said. If the implementation is broken,
> then sure it should be fixed to conform to the spec. But the main thing is
> I believe especially for languages but for most software it is wrong and a
> mistake to let the implentation drive the specification. You need to have
> qualified good people managing the spec, and the implementation must come
> after that.
>
>>> Personally I see no benefit (indeed I see many disadvantges) to frequent
>>> releases of stable software.
>
>> this is als true, there are disadvantages and I also suffer a little from
>> this. but surely not something we cannot live through, especially if
>> there is some kind of guide (3to4 ?)
>
> I think I understand your point, but I feel this view is looking at the
> language more like an OS. Languages and OS are very different creations. An
> OS has to provide services to get work done. It doesn't necessarily have to
> be pure because the end is more important than the means. But a language is
> all about purity, otherwise all languages converge (indeed that is
> happening!) and there becomes little value in any language since they all
> do pretty much the same thing.
>
> Language has to be about elegance and clarity in expression, and safety in
> implementation so that the intent of the person using the language is
> carried out as he expects, with no side effects or smoke and mirrors. For
> this reason I am very opposed to growing languages without very careful
> study by people who know the history and tradition of the language and give
> it some degree of reverence.
>
>
>>> But I often run backlevel intentionally. Firefox is being updated for
>>> many reasons including security holes, bug fixes, new standards, and
>>> more. If the Modula-3 standard hasn't been updated, what is driving the
>>> need for new release(s)?
>
>> if the language does not evolve, is it bound to die?
>
> Not as far as I am concerned. But I still run programs in SNOBOL4 from
> 1969. YMMV ;-)
>
>> if the standard does not evolve, should one consider it to be dead?
>
> It might be dead, it might not. It all depends on whether the language is
> still useful and people actually use it.
>
>> see c++ for instance, recently, there have been changes to the language.
>> this motivates a lot of tuff: conferences, new compilers, new books, new
>> blogposts, and in general, a lot of "hype"
>
> Right, but C++ has many problems and has popularity and issues Modula-3
> happily doesn't have. If you are trying to compete with a mainstream
> language you'll probably not be satisfied.
>
>> if m3 was hyped a little, perhaps it could gain developers.
>
> I think people who attracted by hype aren't the type of people who will
> appreciate Modula-3.
>
>> by gaining such developers, perhaps more bugs could be removed and
>> features could be added as well (for instance, in the library space,
>> where I see that other language have better, more tested, and easier to
>> use LIbraries, but this is , of course, a subjective declaration, and I
>> don't expect anyone to agree with me).
>
> I think it's important, just like in some other successful but maybe not so
> elegant languages (C++, Java) to make a distinction between language and
> libraries. Free Pascal seems to do this pretty well also. You (usually)
> don't have to change the language spec or implementation to offer usable
> libraries. If you do, it should be done carefully. But the language spec
> should not be changed without much study and thought.
>
>>> It looks like cm3 supports more platforms than I have. I would be
>>> willing to help out (I am not a UNIX developer) any way I could. I have
>>> Solaris Intel and SPARC boxes.
>>
>>that Is wonderful news, I appreciate the offer, I hope the language
>>improves, and your boxes serve the purpose!
>
> I see they already have SPARC Solaris support and I think x86 so I am not
> able to offer anything new, but if I can help I will be glad to.
>
> For me I am having a hard time finding learning materials. I think the
> biggest boost to the language would come not from changing it or making new
> releases, but to put together a really good book on Modula-3 and also
> showing how cm3 implements it. The book should break these two things out
> clearly so it could serve as a reference and guide to Modula-3 itself as
> well as how to use cm3 to code in Modula-3. The main barrier to adoption
> and new fans of Modula-3 is the lack of educational materials. You can
> books on almost any topic on the net, but Modula-3 has almost nothing
> available.
>



-- 
312-444-2124
Skype: f3l.headhunter
Casa: 8043901