[Oberon] Oberon-1 or Oberon-2?

skulski at pas.rochester.edu skulski at pas.rochester.edu
Sat Oct 18 16:59:36 CEST 2014

> On 10/14/14 03:48, skulski at pas.rochester.edu wrote:
> Approximately 20 years ago, I heard a guest lecture
> of Prof. Wirth. [...] 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.

Linux kernel is extensively using procedure variables. Having some limited
experience with programming the Linux kernel, I do not think this is a
good recommendation. In the Oberon/Component Pascal community the
procedure variables are frown upon, because procedure variables put
emphasis on run time debugging and testing as the main methods, similar to
development of Linux kernel. Why does anyone want to eat this crow?

> 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.

>From the practical standpoint, this project needs to be ported to a
variety of hardware. Therefore, it cannot stay untouched. I took a shot at
compiling the Verilog code provided on the Project Oberon website. The
Xilinx compiler indicated that staying in the point that was provided is
not an option. I will write more on this later. It is not a matter of
opinion, it is a matter of necessity. The same may be true regarding the
language, or at least its compiler.


More information about the Oberon mailing list