undefined | Better HN

0 pointspjmlp5y ago0 comments

On the contrary, it doesn't do bounds checking, strong typing, modules, co-rotines, explicit unsafe, exceptions, objects, garbage collection for GC types.

C is completely unlike the original Modula-2, and even less so when compared with the extended standard from the late 80's.

As for an actual definition, Zig is one of those that come to mind.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ncmncm5y ago· 1 in thread

My Modula-2 book doesn't mention most of those things. The Modula-2 it describes was about equivalent to C with syntax modernizations and a nod to modules. I suspect you may be conflating it with a later effort, maybe Modula-3.

pjmlpOP5y ago

Time to update your Modula-2 book past 1978 first ISO standard, here Extended ISO Modula-2:

https://modula2.awiedemann.de/manual/comp3.html

Which alongside Modula-2+, served as influence to Modula-3.

Stuff C definitely doesn't have, even when compared with 1978 Modula-2 standard:

- Proper strings with bounds checking

- Proper arrays with bounds checking

- Type safe enumerations

- Set types

- Arrays with enumerated types as indexes, flexibility to set lower and upper bounds

- Explicit unsafe code

- Reference parameters

- Nominal types

- Subranges

- Explicit casts for several cases where C would do implicit casts or type promotions

- Co-routines

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse