[Oberon] Oberon-1 or Oberon-2?

[skulski at pas.rochester.edu]

Chris:

> Crelier's OP2 Oberon-2 compiler totals about 10,000 lines.
> Wirth's latest RISC Oberon compiler is about 30%
> of the size (at less than 3000 lines). Apart from the support
> of the Oberon-2 extensions to the language, one of the
> initial advantages of the OP2 design over Wirth's
> original Oberon compiler was the separation of the
> target-dependent and portable parts of the compiler.

I read NW book on compiler construction, but it did not help me in
understanding either one. Seriously, I vaguely remember that OP2
introduced the intermediate code representation that helped optimize the
emitted opcodes. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am not trying to
insist we need this. I hope that experts can comment.

Oberon-2 "extensions" is another matter. I believe these are not
extensions but important features. I have extensive experience with
Oberon-2 and Component Pascal. I also wrote a graphics system with
System-3 Gadgets, which I later converted to Component Pascal. (This
graphics is still being used in one of the most advanced physics
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.

Wojtek