[M3devel] Think we need a new release.

[vintagecoder at aol.com]

Hello Daniel,

> Agreed.  I can think of two reasons: adding "must have" stuff to the
> standard library, and fixing bugs or improving library, compiler, or
> runtime.  Note that "must have" should probably be evaluated in the
> context of systems programming, which is what Modula-3 is for.

For myself I tend to be very careful when it comes to "must have" in
language design. If you feel the language spec is outdated or insufficient,
then I think it's a dangerous, slippery slope to start adding features to
the language even if they are a must have, without a standards committee.
If people are not careful, they can turn a language that was designed well
into a junk heap before they know it. The threat to the death of a language
through inappropriate changes is far greater than the threat of death by
lack of changes.

If people agree the current spec is not sufficient, or wrong, it seems to
me the first step is to form a language specification committee where the
language can be carefully controlled- and this has to be from a purist
view of the language with no concern for implementation and no "baggage"
other than the existing language spec has to be respected- all the changes
have to be aligned and harmonious with the original purpose and intentions
and direction of Modula-3, otherwise what you said later about a new
language comes into play. Optional features have to be clearly optional-
extensions to the standard that don't make sense in the core have to be
clearly deliniated and the spec has to be amended cleanly to separate core
language, optional extensions, etc. The Ada specification is a good
document to look at for examples of how to do this.

> Even adding new platforms should not require bumping the version number
> if it is the existing infrastructure that is being ported.

Agreed.

> There are loads of "greatest next thing" languages out there that you
> have to re-learn every few releases.  Modula-3 is thankfully not one of
> them.

Agreed!

> Want new stuff in the language?  Then you want Modula-3+ or Modula-4.

Agreed again!

People are so used to constant turmoil because of Linux. I come from a much
different background and I value stability and evolution, not revolution.
New is not necessarily good just like old is not necessarily bad. Good
things pass the test of time and don't need constant changes. If we are
talking about changing the underlying implementation without changing the
language then of course this is fine and should not be held back. My
concern is about letting the implementation drive the specification- I feel
that is wrong, dangerous, and should be resisted.

Many languages today are out of control. To grow a language properly is an
extremely big challenge that has to be taken with a great deal of respect
and concern.