[Oberon] Modula2 vs Oberon IMPORT

Jan Verhoeven jan at verhoeven272.nl
Sat Jan 8 22:22:59 CET 2011

On Saturday 08 January 2011 21:40:07 Duke Normandin wrote:
> "one incarnation of every procedure used" => OK makes sense
> "nothing more" => meaning no other un-used procedures from the
> IMPORTed modules, or meaning no 2nd or 3rd etc copy of used
> procedures?

It's all a bit immaterial. If you want tight code, use assembler or Forth.
If you want to  program in a safe language with a rather wide comfort zone, use Oberon or Modula-2 (in FQI mode).

On a 4 x 3 GHz PC with 4 GB of memory and 1000 GB of diskspace, code- and source size are meaningless.

Until 1997 I mainly programmed in assembler. For lots of reasons. Then, I realized that it didn't matter anymore which language I chose. Small programs in BASIC ran just as fast as their ASM equivalent. So I chose a new language: Modula-2. Just because it was available AND it seemed to fit in with my person(ality).

On the other hand, the byte code produced by the obc is so small. And it runs so fast. It's meaningless to shave off bits.

	source		=   1.033 bytes
	executable	= 23.304 bytes
	source		= 966 bytes
	bytecode file	= 5253 bytes

The obc generates Oberon byte code that is 75% tighter than Modula-2 machine code and runs equally fast.


Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jan Verhoeven
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/pipermail/oberon/attachments/20110108/fe067b0b/attachment.html 

More information about the Oberon mailing list