Re: Some remarks about Oberon/F

Robert M. Hjellming (rhjellmi@aoc.nrao.edu)
Wed, 16 Apr 1997 13:49:48 -0600

At 11:53 AM 4/16/97 PDT, Stan Warford wrote:
>Re:
>
>> 1) I have the impression that quite some "low level"
>> programming is required for the user interface part
>> of the programs (e.g. when I compare with Borland Delphi...).
>
>Actually, I have found the opposite to be true. I have just
>completed teaching a one-year course, introduction to computer
>science, using the Oberon/F system. The graphical user interface
>part was a joy to use because it did _not_ require low level
>programming. Unlike many programming environments (including
>Java, the hot one these days), you don't have to program to the
>event loop. And the technique for linking input values from a dialog
>box to variables in a module using the Forms subsystem is quite
>easy for students to learn.
>
>Stan Warford

I believe that both comments are correct, and that it depends on
what approach you are taking. The Oberon/F Forms subsystem is indeed easy
to implement, so if that matches what you want to do it is great. However,
I believe that it is also true that if you want to deal with other objects,
or the elements of the Oberon/F implementation of the Model/Viewer/Controller
system, you must manage a large number of object elements yourself at
a low level. For those with Pascal orientation this form of dealing with
objects is familiar, but really is at a low level. The equivalent in
Delphi, and in Java, is much simpler. I also cannot agree
with the comment about difficulty of dealing with "event loops" in Java.
The facilities to program threads is quit easy in Java. However, I
do agree that programming "hidden" methods for threads is still messy in
Java - but still simpler than full MVC programming in Oberon/F. Which is
of course still much better (IMHO) than in all the other systems and languages
that I know about. That is why I converted to Oberon and Oberon/F a
couple of years ago. But the improvements represented by Java, and
its much wider availability of useful libraries, are also
the reasons why I have not used Oberon/F for many months now. Any day now
I will unsubscribe to this distribution. Even now I peek at comp.lang.oberon
only once ever couple of weeks or so.

Why don't we have a language and system exactly as I would like it. ;-)
Human nature and our glorious diversity. The beauty of Java, before the
hype-masters and band-wagoneers started to try to control it for their own
ends, is that Gosling and company unknowingly (or knowingly?) followed Wirth's
dictum about making it (the language) simple. A language design for highly
reliable programming for toasters (and other devices) using objects is what
came out. As a language (and system) it is astonishingly similar to Oberon,
as was noted (by the few who know Oberon) when it first
came out. Too bad is still looks like C. ;-) See, my love for Pascal syntax
is still showing. If only they had added readability to their syntax rather
than assuming that it would only sell only if it looked like C. ;-)

Sigh.

Bob Hjellming