[Oberon] Oberon-1 or Oberon-2?

[Richard Hable]

On 10/14/14 03:48, skulski at pas.rochester.edu wrote:

> experiments of our times.) Based on this experience I believe that
> Oberon-2 helps with writing better, more reliable code. It is a pity that
> Oberon-2 is not available under the FPGA Oberon System. Perhaps it was
> more convenient to do so, but I think it was a mistake.

Approximately 20 years ago, I heard a guest lecture of Prof. Wirth at 
the University of Linz, in which he shortly talked about Oberon-2. If 
I remember correctly, he did like the reintroduction of the FOR 
statement. He also liked the possibility to export variables and 
record components for read-only access (with the "-" sign instead of 
"*"), although he would have made this the default. He did not like 
type-bound procedures, saying that they were some kind of constant 
record components and that procedure variables should be used instead.

Therefore, I think Oberon on the FPGA is the way it is not because of 
convenience but because that's how Wirth wanted it to be.

Richard