Re: name changes

Eric W. Nikitin (enikitin@apk.net)
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:02:52 -0500 (EST)

Hello!

I didn't want to "make a scene" about the name changes, but
perhaps I'll join the bandwagon of "small voices of dissent" :)

I wasn't thrilled when I heard about the name changes. I have no
better chance of selling my current employeers on a "new Pascal"
( not Standard Pascal, not Extended Standard, not "defacto (Borland)
Standard" - in short, a *proprietary* Pascal ), than I did on
Oberon.

To some, the name changes might seem like a good "marketing move",
but I would think that adding support for more platforms ( I'd really
have liked to see a Solaris version of Oberon/F ), or providing an
optional Java compiler to the framework would have been more
sellable.

After thinking about this for a while, I think the thing that bothers
me the most about the name changes is that I'm not exactly sure *why*
the names were changed. *Is* it purely for marketing reasons? If so,
what do they think these name changes will buy them? Do they really
think that Pascal is all that much more marketable than Oberon? And
after all, it is a *proprietary* version of Pascal, isn't it?

Robert M. Hjellming (Bob) <rhjellmi@aoc.nrao.edu> wrote:
> 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.

It's about as logical as writing a Modula-2 compiler and then calling
it "Modular Pascal". As you implied, if N. Wirth had orginally called
the languages "Modular Pascal" and "Component Pascal", they might have
had more "success". But then, what is the relative success of Objective-C?

The only logical reason I can think of for changing the language name
is, since the language has been so much extended, it is no longer
truely Oberon-2; but a new language altogether. If so, then what changes
have been made?

> 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.

The name doesn't grab me either... if I knew nothing else about the
product, I'd think it was just another PowerBuilder clone.

If the company is still "Oberon MicroSystems", then why not call
it "Oberon Component Builder" or "Oberon/F Component Builder"?

> 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.

As a developer, I look at the features of a tool when deciding what
it is I like about it. The sole feature that got my interest in
Oberon/F was the use of Oberon as its programming language. What
would have kept my interest was support for more platforms, support
for internet development, better documentation, a few books...

Now, why would I choose it over Delphi?

> Oberon is becoming more and more of a niche language for those
> who like a certain style of programming.

I understand the sentiment, but I choose not to share it with you.
I will soon have a introductory programming book published which
uses Oberon-2. I still have faith that Oberon *can* be a successful
language.

I *had* hoped to be able to recommend Oberon/F to those wishing
to learn Oberon. Now it will seem a little silly to say, "Buy my
book on Oberon-2, and then use this Component Pascal compiler
with it".

Speaking of books - that has been my greatest complaint against
Oberon/F: weakness of documentation. Will Oberon MicroSystems
make books available on the component builder and Component Pascal?

> Just one small voice of dissent.

Count me as the second! :)

-- 
Eric
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   _Common Sense_ does not mean that good sense which is common, or commonly 
   needed in the ordinary affairs of life, but the sense which is common to 
   all the five, or the point where the five senses  meet, supposed to be 
   the seat of the soul, where it judges what is presented by the senses, 
   and decides the mode of action. 
	-- The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable 
	-- http://www.bibliomania.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~