name changes

Robert M. Hjellming (rhjellmi@aoc.nrao.edu)
Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:04:59 -0600

While I agree that changing the name to of Oberon/L to Component
Pascal has some logic, and perhaps should have been done years
ago, it is a bit late to do that in one commercial company
promoting the product. In addition, I think the new name for
Oberon/F - Blackbox Component Builder, is cumbersome and
unfortunate. Perhaps it translates better in other languages
besides English; I suspect it is a very nice name in German.
Back when Oberon/F was named it was perhaps
an example of being too obscure with names; Framework Oberon
would have been better. Dropping the framework concept make it more
obvious to me that they are reacting to a current fad. The recent
trend of emphasizing the components over frameworks is more
"rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" than doing anything
substantive.

Personally I think it is sad that they play with names while
basic changes that would make Oberon/F more easily usable
are not being done. Such as providing the sort of libraries
of that (all hype aside) have made Java a very strong development.
Oberon is becoming more and more of a niche language for those
who like a certain style of programming.

Finally, in part because the name Oberon will remain with the
ETHZ products, and the overall system, I think the name changes
will cause even more confusion than we now have with the many
variants of Oberon.

Just one small voice of dissent.

Bob Hjellming