What are Modula2 And Oberon?

[VisualLab]

I could never program in a language called Kotlin for example, no matter how good it is.

I don't think Kotlin is any better or worse than Modula 2 or Oberon. As well as Object Pascal Just another (new, but not extraordinary) language to complete the collection of languages for JVM. If someone finds it useful, that's ok. But in the last 10 years a lot of such "new" languages have appeared. They all suffer from the same thing: lack of a polished compiler, debugger, libraries (this takes time and people). That's probably why they either use the JVM or the CLR backend. And big players (Google, Oracle, Microsoft) are doing their best to convince programmers (but also computer users) that their VM with "add-ons" is the best thing humanity has achieved in IT.

It is a pity that these types of solutions "eat up" the increase in computing power and ever-larger computer memory for "grinding" intermediate layers, instead of just data processing. It would be better to use it for more interesting things. For now, this is only the case with AAA games (apart from the fact that games, as entertainment, are not a serious application of computers) or scientific software (e.g. Gaussian), which requires really large computing power and memory.

[MarkMLl]

But in the last 10 years a lot of such "new" languages have appeared. They all suffer from the same thing: lack of a polished compiler, debugger, libraries (this takes time and people).

I would suggest that an important- possibly the sole- criterion for a new language being significant is that it finds ways of abstracting multiple elements of its predecessors into a single core-language element.

By that metric, I feel that Object Pascal circa 2023 leaves much to be desired.

MarkMLl

[440bx]

Constructive criticism does _not_ include using malicious edits as support for the claim that technical articles are not always accurate as was done in this post:

But technical articles are not always accurate either:

• Pascal sucks, is a JEW, etc.
• Pascal is a very bad programming language. Just learn C++.
• Pascal was developed by Atul Srivastava, Aivars Laganovskis, or maybe you?

When someone gives themselves the luxury to criticize, which I am doing here with this post, the person should point out the reason and foundation for the criticism.  For instance:

I have caught them disparaging things that I’m quite knowledgeable about,...

Apparently some people, like the one just quoted, find it perfectly acceptable to make unfounded claims and consistenly indulge in repeating those unfounded claims again and again.  Such behavior denotes significant character flaws, at least in my opinion.

You make the following claims:

I myself tried many times to straighten the nonsense contained in some IT articles in Wikipedia (e.g. C language, Python language). After a few days, some fanatic was posting his nonsense again.

Built into your sentence is the fact that those articles should still contain the nonsense you claim to have unsuccessfully attempted to correct, yet, you have not provided a single example and, if Wikipedia was (or is) guilty of what you and others criticize for, it should be reasonably easy for you and the others who baselessly accuse it to provide multiple examples to support your statements. 

So, how about it ??... how about fewer claims and more facts... is that asking for too much ?

and just in case, making unfounded accusations is not a form of "constructive criticism".  Nice try.

Got to give you credit for one thing, you were right when you surmised being among those included in the phrase "a few others".

Look chaps, we're getting /way/ off-topic here. If nobody has anything more to say about Modula-2 or Oberon and how they relate to Pascal and (possibly) its predecessors I think it's time to wrap things up.

I agree with that.

[VisualLab]

You make the following claims:

I myself tried many times to straighten the nonsense contained in some IT articles in Wikipedia (e.g. C language, Python language). After a few days, some fanatic was posting his nonsense again.

Built into your sentence is the fact that those articles should still contain the nonsense you claim to have unsuccessfully attempted to correct, ...

This is over-interpretation and even imputing (saying something to someone that they didn't do). In my statement that you quoted, it only said that:

1. I made several attempts to repair the content of articles broken by a fanatic,
2. after several attempts to repair, I gave up and found the pointlessness of the corrections made.

I just wasted my time and the damage still hasn't been repaired. Perhaps after some time (a year?, more?) the fanatic got bored - I don't know, after that I didn't check anymore. Anyway, what I wrote in my statement proves only one thing - about resignation. In no way did I say that Wikipedia should contain nonsense. Quite the opposite. Only life isn't all about writing and editing Wikipedia articles.

...yet, you have not provided a single example and, if Wikipedia was (or is) guilty of what you and others criticize for, it should be reasonably easy for you and the others who baselessly accuse it to provide multiple examples to support your statements. 

So, how about it ??... how about fewer claims and more facts... is that asking for too much ?

and just in case, making unfounded accusations is not a form of "constructive criticism".  Nice try.

Got to give you credit for one thing, you were right when you surmised being among those included in the phrase "a few others".

After all, everyone knows that checking defective articles in Wikipedia only takes a few minutes

But since I've been counted among the unfounded enemies of Wikipedia, I won't bother checking Wikipedia for faulty articles. Moreover, to meet my inclusion among the enemies of Wikipedia, I will make myself an appropriate thumbnail for my nick. With the content: "On the scaffold with Wikipedia"

[VisualLab]

. Also, if you'd like to get respect, you should start by earning it.  A good way would be to provide a list of links to Wikipedia articles (here, where you made the accusations) along with a clear explanation of what is objectionable in each of them along with _credible_, _reputable_ sources that support the points you make.

440bx
It would be fairly exhausting to go through all the times I’ve discovered biased/ lying Wikipedia articles. I sent you a pm regarding A case of mass murder wherein some buildings with people in them were demolished. The Wikipedia article about that is very biased.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble but Wikipedia exists for a reason and the reason is to influence people. The useful articles are not the main purpose of Wikipedia they are there to get people to use and trust it 

This is quite a serious allegation. Theoretically, some social networking sites can be used by various groups of people to achieve not always fair goals. After all, it is a medium of communication. And the media (newspapers, radio, TV) have always been used by: politicians, business, etc. For example, originally Facebook was a simple social networking site. But big business saw it as an advertising platform. What big company wouldn't take advantage of such an opportunity?

It seems to me that in the case of Wikipedia, such intrusive practices would rather not pass. Perhaps some vague references in a very short form could be smuggled in, but it would have to be of considerable length. But that would be quickly picked up and removed. After all, a lot of people read Wikipedia, people who are very allergic to BigTech or BigPharma. Perhaps articles on sociology, political science, history or religion (especially one that is very noisy) may contain some politically correct references. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is edited in many languages. What is reproved in one, can be praised in another (e.g. fanaticism of various ideologies, both utopian and fantastic).

[440bx]

It would be fairly exhausting to go through all the times I’ve discovered biased/ lying Wikipedia articles.

Nowhere have I requested that you provide a list of "all the times" you've "discovered biased/lying articles."  What I have requested, multiple times, is one or preferably more examples of the accusations you are, unfoundedly, making yet again!.

I sent you a pm regarding A case of mass murder wherein some buildings with people in them were demolished.

You sent me a PM where you made an, again, unsupported claim.  Since you make the accusations in public, supporting evidence should also be made in public. Additionally, what you sent in the PM is not evidence, it is simply yet one more unsupported accusation.

Since in the paragraph above I am claiming that you did NOT provide support for any of the accusations you've made, attached to this post is a snapshot of the PM you sent me which clearly shows that it is nothing but another unsupported claim.  There is the support for the claim I've made, you should consider supporting the claims you make.


@VisualLab, you supported the accusations made to Wikipedia, though you did note that @Joanna's accusations were exaggerated but, the fact remains: you have _not_ provided any support whatsoever for those accusations you agree with.

Furthermore, you claimed to have unsuccessfully attempted to correct some of the articles you found "deficient" in some way but, when it comes to giving examples, nothing but excuses for leaving the accusations unfounded.  Simply not good enough.

Just in case, this is part of what you posted:

I myself tried many times to straighten the nonsense contained in some IT articles in Wikipedia (e.g. C language, Python language).

Again, I ask you to post a few links to some of those articles that, according to you, contain nonsense, what the nonsense is and, what the article should say instead.

I realize that this is more work than simply making accusations but, since you questioned Wikipedia's credibility, I feel it necessary to inform you that when you do not provide support for _your_ statements then it is _your_ credibility that suffers, certainly not Wikipedia's.

[440bx]

Although I have found many discrepancies in Wikipedia, I chose a well known mass murder event as an example of bias.

You also chose _not_ to provide a link to the article and, chose _not_ to point out what is wrong with it among the most basic actions you should have taken to support your hollow points.  I say hollow because if there was any substance to the claims you've made, you would have provided some support for them by now.

I’m sorry, I had assumed that everyone was already familiar with the famous story

What you're really sorry about is that you assumed that no one would ask you to support your claims.  That you are obviously sorry about because your inability to support your claims could hardly be more evident.

Did I fail to mention that I studied Physics?

That wouldn't make your claims any more dubious than they already are but, I'm pleased you studied something.

It’s great that you have such a staunch sense of loyalty to Wikipedia for providing you with some good articles. That’s exactly what they want 

I don't have a staunch sense of loyalty to Wikipedia.  What I do have is a set of moral and ethical principles that require accusations made by someone to be reasonably well supported. 

IMO, this is very important because while you are throwing unfounded accusations about Wikipedia at this time, if that unacceptable behavior is not challenged, i.e, the lack of foundation, then it's likely you'll baselessly accuse other people or organizations just because they are not to your liking, e.g, you seem to have a problem with lurkers in IRC.

[LV]

Healthy skepticism will not hurt when reading not only Wikipedia, but also the journal Nature. This also applies to the discussion of the programming languages Modula2, Oberon and others

[MarkMLl]

Healthy skepticism will not hurt when reading not only Wikipedia, but also the journal Nature. This also applies to the discussion of the programming languages Modula2, Oberon and others

I agree.

Look chaps, this thread really has gone wildly off-topic, and has turned into something borderline unpleasant. We all know why, and we all know who has a history of encouraging such things (and has been warned firmly by the mods about doing so).

So if there's nothing more useful to say about Modula-2 and Oberon, could we /please/ draw a line under this.

MarkMLl

[JanRoza]

MarkMLI, I fully agree. Close this subject.

[MarkMLl]

Not my decision. But if there's any more of this grossly off-topic conspirationalist stuff I'll ask the mods to review the thread.

I thought it appropriate to reassure somebody that the technical articles on Wp aren't, generally, too bad after suggesting rather brusquely that zhe should check it before going off-topic here (i.e. "What's POSIX?" etc.): however that appears to have been taken as an invitation to rant.

MarkMLl

[Kays]

You choose a programming language based on your application’s needs. If Pascal’s “deficiencies” render it unsuitable for your application, choose a different programming language.

In that case, the original Pascal is perfectly well suited to write a "Hello World" application and _maybe_ something _slightly_ more elaborate.

The term original Pascal is not well defined. Do you even intend to program on a computer built in 1970?

[…] The main problem with Wikipedia is its credibility. […]

I am mainly concerned, because WP’s mission is to preserve all mankind’s knowledge (within its “relevance criteria”): That means more and more articles get created as “new knowledge” comes into existence, yet still there is a rather constant number of contributors who have to maintain a growing number of articles. There are various technical efforts, but I am afraid they do not address the general issue here. As of today there is no policy for deleting articles/content merely because of lack of manpower, because they cannot be maintained anymore.

[…] You and a few others in this thread make accusations against Wikipedia but, none of you have the _decency_ of supporting them, therefore, your "concerns" (read: unsupported biases) are not worth anyone's consideration (certainly not mine!). […]

Well, have you checked Wikipedia?

No, it was vandalism. In Wikipedia.

I am sorry, vandalism was easier to spot in the version history (“reverted” tag). Here is an example for factual inaccuracy: In November 2019 someone added the claim, the FPC supported both ISO standards. In 2019, FPC version 3.0.4 was current. Yet the FPC 3.0.4 provides very limited support. For example, ISO standards 7185 and 10206 state:

Any assertion in clause 6 that the end-of-line value is attributed to a variable other than a component of a sequence shall be construed as an assertion that the variable has attributed to it the char-type value space.

In less complicated terms this means (Jensen/Wirth, Pascal user manual and report, 4th ed.):

When eoln(F) becomes true for textfile F (Section 11.5.2), the buffer variable F↑ becomes the char value space (' ').

Now take the following program

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. {$mode ISO}
2. program isoIOtest(input, output);
3. begin
4.         while not EOF do
5.         begin
6.                 output^ := input^;
7.                
8.                 if input^ = ' ' then
9.                 begin
10.                         output^ := '|';
11.                 end;
12.                
13.                 put(output);
14.                 get(input);
15.         end;
16. end.

If this program is fed with two lines

Code: Text  [Select][+][-]

1. foo
2. bar

The GPC correctly produces the output foo|bar. The FPC does not. This unsourced claim remained live for 3½ years.

[JanRoza]

easier to criticize than to help isn’t it?

Johanna, and your off-topic interventions do help?
Moderator please lock this subject, it is the only way to stop some people from going off-topic time and time again.

[marcov]

Indeed enough is enough, locked