tsilander@cc.helsinki.fi (Tomi Silander) (04/12/91)
Because we haven't seen any information on the new version of JPI Modula-2 compiler here we decided to post some. According to the new brochure about JPI compiler family following additions have been made to Modula-2 compiler. New object oriented features have been added. Type system now supports multiple inheritance, automatic object initialization and automatic type conversions. Compiler supports up to 32 threads under DOS and OS/2. Their new Tech Kit supports Windows 3 programming and includes a recource compiler. Other compilers that are available for the multi language environment are C, C++ and Pascal with objects. We haven't received our update yet, but it will arrive somewhere in early May. We surely hope that it'll be less buggy than previous versions. By the way, there has been some talk here about JPI's policy of updating version 2 compilers to version 3. Do we recall correctly that somebody said JPI will give free updates? T.Silander
gkt@iitmax.iit.edu (George Thiruvathukal) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr12.151023.5956@cc.helsinki.fi>, tsilander@cc.helsinki.fi (Tomi Silander) writes: > By the way, there has been some talk here about JPI's policy of > updating version 2 compilers to version 3. Do we recall correctly > that somebody said JPI will give free updates? For people who purchased version 2 of TopSpeed Modula-2, a coupon was sent out for a free upgrade to version 3. I believe another coupon was sent out which gives you a discount on any of their other products. TopSpeed is now an entire system. The environment, compilers, TeckKit, and libraries are separate products. If you want a Modula-2 compiler, all you need to purchase is the environment and the Modula-2 compiler. If you want to add a language (like C++, Pascal, or C), you can purchase it separately and plug it into the system. The preliminary pricing information I have seen for each item in the TopSpeed system is $99 US. With TopSpeed 3.0 the C++ and Pascal compilers are "new kids on the block." -- George Thiruvathukal Laboratory for Parallel Computing and Languages Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago
GRANGERG@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Granger) (04/16/91)
On Fri, 12 Apr 91 18:10:23 GMT <editor%ucf1vm.BITNET@LILAC.BERKELEY.EDU> said: >... >TopSpeed is now an entire system. The environment, compilers, TeckKit, and >libraries are separate products. If you want a Modula-2 compiler, all you >need to purchase is the environment and the Modula-2 compiler. If you want to >add a language (like C++, Pascal, or C), you can purchase it separately and >plug it into the system. The preliminary pricing information I have seen for >each item in the TopSpeed system is $99 US. With TopSpeed 3.0 the C++ and >Pascal compilers are "new kids on the block." This makes a lot of sense, and is a step in the right direction. Glad to see them return to a 'reasonable' pricing structure, it certainly should provide JPI with a larger installed (and installable) base. Greg PS: Where are u getting your info from ?
gkt@iitmax.iit.edu (George Thiruvathukal) (04/16/91)
In article <INFO-M2%91041515111380@UCF1VM.BITNET>, GRANGERG@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Granger) writes: > On Fri, 12 Apr 91 18:10:23 GMT <editor%ucf1vm.BITNET@LILAC.BERKELEY.EDU> said: > >... > >TopSpeed is now an entire system. The environment, compilers, TeckKit, and > >libraries are separate products. If you want a Modula-2 compiler, all you > >need to purchase is the environment and the Modula-2 compiler. If you want to > >add a language (like C++, Pascal, or C), you can purchase it separately and > >plug it into the system. The preliminary pricing information I have seen for > >each item in the TopSpeed system is $99 US. With TopSpeed 3.0 the C++ and > >Pascal compilers are "new kids on the block." > > This makes a lot of sense, and is a step in the right direction. > Glad to see them return to a 'reasonable' pricing structure, it certainly > should provide JPI with a larger installed (and installable) base. > > Greg > > PS: Where are u getting your info from ? My information comes from a set of flyers which was mailed to me by Martin Waldron of JPI. The flyers were sent to individuals who participated in the Beta testing process for TopSpeed 3.0. The reason the flyers were sent was twofold: 1. So we could spread the word about how great the TopSpeed product is. 2. So we would know just what information could be made public prior to the official release date. I will be happy to address questions regarding release 3.0 of TopSpeed which do not violate the nondisclosure agreement I signed. -- George Thiruvathukal Laboratory for Parallel Computing and Languages Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago
brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr12.151023.5956@cc.helsinki.fi> tsilander@cc.helsinki.fi (Tomi Silander) writes: >New object oriented features have been added. Type system now supports >multiple inheritance, automatic object initialization and automatic type >conversions. With these new features added, the compiler is no more a Modula-2 compiler. It would really be great if JPI could decide to call this no more Modula-2, as is usual for such major changes. Since this is a similar step from Modula-2 as C++ is from C, I propose to call it 'Modula-2++' -:). By the way, this is the stuff that I definitely do not want to have in a Modula-2-like OOL. Marc-Michael Brandis Computer Systems Laboratory, ETH-Zentrum (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland email: brandis@inf.ethz.ch
tsilander@cc.helsinki.fi (Tomi Silander) (04/18/91)
Thank you for answering my questions. I still have some comments and questions. >Greg Grancer writes: Glad to see them return to a 'reasonable' pricing >structure, ...... Lucky you, 99$ is reasonable. The company which imports TopSpeed-products in Finland asks about 275$ for an update from version -2 to version-3. Id est - I have TopSpeed Modula-2 V2 dos edition release 1.05b and TopSpeed Modula-2 V2 extended edition (TechKit) for dos development under dos or OS/2 version 1.05b and TopSpeed Modula-2 V2 Multi-language support release 1.05b. Now I should pay 275$ for an update to corresponding V3 setup. Ain't reasonable. So, if there are more people (thanks G.T) out there with free-update coupons please tell me so I can put pressure on our local import company. And to George Thiruvathukal: Does your nondiclosure agreement allow you answer to this : When is/was the actual release date? Tomi Silander INTERNET: tsilander@cc.helsinki.fi
wewst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (William E Williams) (04/18/91)
>And to George Thiruvathukal: Does your nondiclosure agreement allow you >answer to this : When is/was the actual release date? > > >Tomi Silander INTERNET: tsilander@cc.helsinki.fi I called and asked on Monday. Tuesday (today) is the offical release date. The reason I called was to findout the price of a student upgrade. They saids they will have that price by next week. Ted
sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) (04/18/91)
In article <28053@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) writes: > ... >With these new features added, the compiler is no more a Modula-2 compiler. It >would really be great if JPI could decide to call this no more Modula-2, as is >usual for such major changes. Since this is a similar step from Modula-2 as >C++ is from C, I propose to call it 'Modula-2++' -:). You certainly intended 'INC(Modula-2)' :-) Markku Sakkinen Department of Computer Science and Information Systems University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts) PL 35 SF-40351 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again) Finland SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative network address)
GRANGERG@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Granger) (04/19/91)
On Thu, 18 Apr 91 06:02:34 GMT Markku Sakkinen said: >In article <28053@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) >> ... >>C++ is from C, I propose to call it 'Modula-2++' -:). > >You certainly intended 'INC(Modula-2)' :-) From the one -- to -- far department Don't you mean INC(INC(Modula-2)); ;-) 'nuff Greg
gkt@iitmax.iit.edu (George Thiruvathukal) (04/19/91)
Tomi Silander of Helsinki wanted to know about the actual release information for JPI TopSpeed 3.0. The actual release date was Tuesday, 16 April 1991. I just talked to Martin Waldron at JPI today. He says JPI will be shipping the new products at the beginning of next week. I would suggest to the users of JPI products outside of the USA that they contact JPI in the United States for information about the free upgrade to version 3.0. I find it somewhat surprising that these users were not issued coupons. Regards, -- George Thiruvathukal Laboratory for Parallel Computing and Languages Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago
jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) (04/19/91)
Sounds like more JPI bashing, even before the product is in hand! What would you call Borland's Pascal? (which out distanced the standard long ago).
USDGOG@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Granger) (04/19/91)
On Fri, 19 Apr 91 02:14:54 GMT Larry M. Jordan said: >Sounds like more JPI bashing, even before the product is in hand! > >What would you call Borland's Pascal? (which out distanced the >standard long ago). I've always called it Turbo Pascal (but never just Pascal :-) I have hopes for version 3.0 of JPI M2, and don't really mean to be 'bashing' it. However, I'm afraid I'm alone it wanting a M2 compiler rather than a C compiler. Multi-lang is nice, but not if it means giving up design philosophy and language 'cleaness' for marketing hype points. Greg
news@PSG.COM (Randy Bush) (04/20/91)
> Don't you mean INC(INC(Modula-2)); ;-)
Definitely not! INC is not a pure function, but a procedure.fraro@mqssys.hanse.de (Frank Rolf) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr17.195243.6031@cc.helsinki.fi> tsilander@cc.helsinki.fi (Tomi Silander) writes: > >Greg Grancer writes: Glad to see them return to a 'reasonable' pricing > >structure, ...... > > Lucky you, 99$ is reasonable. I don't think that you will get a complete Topspeed development system for $99. From CeBIT '91 I took an order form with me and my understanding is the following: You can customize your development system and you have to pay for every single part. At least you need 2 parts: The Topspeed Environment (editor, debugger, helpsystem,...) and one of the compilers. For a 2-parts-system the special CeBIT offer was DM 460,- (round about $270). On the basis of better prices in USA you may have to pay $99 per part, but this doubles the price for a minimal system to $198. Greetings, Frank. -- Frank Rolf - Tel: ((+49) 40) 25 21 78 - Email: fraro@mqssys.hanse.de - 'I thought it was in the shape of Florida!' (Rose, Golden Girls) -
eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au (04/22/91)
On Thu, 18 Apr 91 06:02:34 GMT Markku Sakkinen said: >In article <28053@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) >> ... >>C++ is from C, I propose to call it 'Modula-2++' -:). > >You certainly intended 'INC(Modula-2)' :-) But the result of INC(Modula-2) is Modula-1. By the way, did you hear about the new upgrade to C++? It's called D- Peter Moylan eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
AL281785@VMTECSLP.BITNET (RoDoGu) (04/22/91)
Attention ETH: Why not to define Modula-2++? Why not to standardize OOP in Modula-2? ============================================================================ Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus San Luis MEXICO Roberto Dominguez Gutierrez, AL-ISC
USDGOG@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Granger) (04/23/91)
On Fri, 19 Apr 91 22:31:00 PDT Randy Bush said: >> Don't you mean INC(INC(Modula-2)); ;-) > >Definitely not! INC is not a pure function, but a procedure. Yep, you caught me. ... <sigh> sorry about that :-) Greg
jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) (04/23/91)
>But the result of INC(Modula-2) is Modula-1.
Amusing, but still not legal Modula-2. INC requires something
with an l-value, not a r-value. Wirth misnamed Modula-2 in
the first place. Should have been 'INC(Modula)'. 'INC(Modula-2)'
should be
INC(Modula);
INC(Modula);
Yes, it is awkward. I wish Modula-2 were less statement-oriented
and more expression-oriented. I preferred the Pascal standard
function:
succ(succ(Modula)). buschman@TUBSIBR.UUCP (Andreas Buschmann) (04/24/91)
In comp.lang.modula2 you write:
>Why not to define Modula-2++? Why not to standardize OOP in Modula-2?
Modula-2+ has been defined by some people at DEC and Olivetti some
years ago.
See extending Modula-2 to build large integrated systems by Paul
Rovner, in IEEE Software, Novermber 1986, p46.
This has been worked on to create Modula-3. See the newsgroup
comp.lang.modula3.
The Report is available by ftp at gatekeeper.dec.com [16.1.0.2] in
pub/DEC/Modula-3.
Tschuess
Andreas
/:) Andreas Buschmann
/-:) TU Braunschweig, Germany (West)
^^^^ was
bitnet: buschman%tubsibr@dbsinf6.bitnet
uucp: buschman@tubsibr.uucp
p.s. I am not related to the Modula3 project, with the exception of
writing my own little interpreter for m3.USDGOG@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Granger) (04/24/91)
On Sun, 21 Apr 91 10:13:34 GMT <editor%ucf1vm.BITNET@LILAC.BERKELEY.EDU> said: >.. >debugger, helpsystem,...) and one of the compilers. For a 2-parts-system the >special CeBIT offer was DM 460,- (round about $270). On the basis of better >prices in USA you may have to pay $99 per part, but this doubles the price for >a minimal system to $198. > >Greetings, Frank. Sigh, we still a bit better than the current system. They should sell one complete language for $99.00 (or 150.00, give some kind of break). Such is life. Greetings ... Greg
VOGT@EMBL.BITNET (Gerhardt Vogt) (04/25/91)
>>debugger, helpsystem,...) and one of the compilers. For a 2-parts-system the >>special CeBIT offer was DM 460,- (round about $270). On the basis of better >>prices in USA you may have to pay $99 per part, but this doubles the price for >>a minimal system to $198. >> >>Greetings, Frank. >Sigh, we still a bit better than the current system. They should sell >one complete language for $99.00 (or 150.00, give some kind of break). >Such is life. >Greetings ... Greg When I the system 3 or 4 years ago, it was superior to all development system I knew and it was really cheap. In the meantime they removed several parts that I liked very much and made the system much more expensive. I've been on CeBIT and had a very long discussion with several people from JPI. At the beginning one got library sources free. Now they sell it (cheaper then their competitors) seperately. And C++ and C are two different languages for them which you have to buy (and pay) seperatly. So the price is even higher than it looks at the first glance. On the CeBit I had the feeling that 3.0 is mainly a bug fix version (the environment did not change very much) and (i might be wrong) is still not usable with a mouse (i mean practically usable, in theory it's of course possible). The ugrade price isn't bug fix like. Anyway, I wait for my update because I would like to try some Win 3 programming and the beta version I have gave me the feeling that it is better to program the Win interface in C which I cannot do with the beta version. Gerhard Disclaimer: I don't have 3.0 yet and it might be superior to all existing systems and worth at least twice its price.
toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (04/25/91)
It's now in multiple parts? Most of us are sitting around with a "free upgrade" coupon. Will that just give us a free upgrade for the $99 compiler part, or will we get the equivalent new version (compiler, environment, lib sources?). I'd like to use my "half off" coupon on the C compiler component, rather than having to use it to complete my Modula-2 upgrade. -- Tom Almy toma@sail.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
VOGT@EMBL.BITNET (Gerhardt Vogt) (04/26/91)
>Most of us are sitting around with a "free upgrade" coupon. Will that just >give us a free upgrade for the $99 compiler part, or will we get the >equivalent new version (compiler, environment, lib sources?). I'd like >to use my "half off" coupon on the C compiler component, rather than having >to use it to complete my Modula-2 upgrade. > >-- >Tom Almy >toma@sail.labs.tek.com >Standard Disclaimers Apply Hi Tom, I guess we have to wait. In my last posting I said that I had long discussions with some people from JPI (tech & sales) on the CeBIT. I did not have my voucher with me and did not remember exactly what was stated on it and the people from JPI did not even know that these vouchers exist. I have M2 extended and C normal and asked for a upgrade to M2 3.0 and C++ 3.0 and they offered my a quite expensive upgrade (about $200). When I came back home and looked on my voucher (the same you have I guess) I called JPI in England and was told (after talking to several people) that, if such a voucher exists (they seemed not to know about it) it can be used for free M2 (including source) + half price C++. For C I might have to pay. Our friends in England should know more about it, I was told in my last call that they have received their upgrade offers and that we (in Germany) will get it next week. People in the states might have to wait longer. Gerhard PS: My experience on the CeBIT was quite annoying. The guy I talked to on the CeBIT told me that I would get CeBIT discount from them and that he has told the german distributor to do the same. The german distributor told me that he was not told anything about discounts and that he was not willing to give any. JPI had sent me a CeBIT voucher by mail, I got another voucher + a mail envelope!!! but when I looked at it at home i noticed that it was valid only on CeBIT and when I called JPI in England I was told the same and that I can use only one 50% voucher anyway. (Why do they sent me a second voucher if only one (the grey, double one you have) is valid.
Ben.Stuyts@p6.f202.n281.z2.fidonet.org (Ben Stuyts) (04/27/91)
LM> Amusing, but still not legal Modula-2. INC requires something LM> with an l-value, not a r-value. Wirth misnamed Modula-2 in LM> the first place. Should have been 'INC(Modula)'. 'INC(Modula-2)' LM> should be LM> LM> INC(Modula); LM> INC(Modula); So what's wrong with: INC(Modula, 2) ??? Best regards, Ben -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!2!281!202.6!Ben.Stuyts Internet: Ben.Stuyts@p6.f202.n281.z2.fidonet.org
tsi@cup.portal.com (David TSI Tingler) (04/28/91)
Actually, I think it would be: INC(Modula,2). David