[Oberon] Trivialising formality considered harmful
fusionfive at comhem.se
Fri Mar 17 17:38:34 CET 2006
John Drake wrote:
> --- August Karlstrom <fusionfive at comhem.se> wrote:
>>John Drake wrote:
>>>I've in the opposite
>>>boat as you and can't comment much about OOC
>>>because I'm pretty much stuck in a Windows
>>>world. (Wondering what it would take to
>>>run OOC under Cygwin?)
>>I have successfully installed OOC under Windows with
>>by Stewart Greenhill are included in the OOC
> Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember this.
> I have no experience with MinGW but could try
> that out. Were you able to get the VisualOberon
> library working with it?
MinGW is much more light-weight compared to Cygwin. Never tried
> We have to be carefull not to put too much stock
> in the Oakwood document. It's not the
> equivalent of "ANSI-C" but rather a set
> of recommendations.
OK, I see, you are probably right.
> Sure, you can write your own compiler from
> scratch if you wish and make it 100%
> Oakwood compliant down to every recommended
> library and extension. If that's what
> you want to do, I wish you luck. But
> I'm more interested in moving forward
> a set of portable libraries that people
> can use with the Oberon-2 compilers that
> already exist. That means acknowledging
> the fact that names like "Files" and
> "Strings" are typically already taken.
> So the challenge to day is to build up a
> library set that various Oberon programs
> working with various compilers and/or systems
> can find usefull. I guess I'm not as
> concerned about other people's perceptions
> of Oberon as I am with what I can do with
Larger community means faster progress.
> I have the belief that "If you build
> it, they will come." There's functionality
> that we don't have across all Oberon
> compilers that we should have.
More information about the Oberon