Re:Internals of a Turbo Pascal Compiler
by nickpsecurity on Saturday September 12, 2015 @12:11AM
(#10207189)
Modula-3 semantics married to Python syntax. Now that sounds potentially great. :) Even more so since I've recommended each language. Modula-3 was the second time (since Turbo Pascal) that industry types took Wirth's design ideas, ran with them, and produced an industrial implementation that kicked ass. Was used in SPIN OS w/ type-safe linking where OS and linked code leveraged type system for protection. Python syntax's benefits are well known.
I was a bit concerned about the maturity, compiler complexity, available libraries, and so on about Nim. I figured it might be in alpha quality or something given it's so new. So, I was hesitant to try it. I might give it a go sometime soon reading comments like yours.
Btw, do you have experience with its macro system? Any take-it-to-next-level language needs at least good macros and preferably great ones. Top contenders of my recent research are Racket, Julia, and Red. If Nim is more like Modula3/Python & has good macros, then it might be a credible contender due to mainstream programmers being able to pick it up more easily than really weird languages.
Or, for that matter, Nim, which also has a huge amount of Pascal heritage.
Go is a hybrid of Oberon and C (with semantics leaning more towards Oberon and syntax more towards C, but they're both mixed in), and Nim is Modula-3 semantics married to Python syntax (with the best parts of a bunch of other languages thrown in). Both Oberon and Modula-3 are descended from Modula-2, which in turn is descended from Pascal.
Personally, I'm more in the Nim camp, partially because I prefer Modula-3 to Oberon, partially because I prefer Nim's Pythonesque syntax to Go's C/Oberon mashup syntax, and partially because Nim's metaprogramming features are truly beautiful.