Talk:Modula-3 programming language

The author of this page obviously had no experience with Modula-3 programming, and some of the statements are just wrong. To be sure, Modula-3 had its defects, and its failure was not entirely undeserved; but Modula-3's object model, in particular, was a distinct improvement on its sucessors, vastly better than Java's. Too bad that the world was not prepared to understand it....Jorge Stolfi 09:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the comment about Java not supporting interfaces, because it clearly does. While it's true most Java coders do not separate implementation from interface the feature is always available for that style. MShonle 09:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think perhaps the point that the writer of that comment was trying to make is that interfaces in Java are used differently (I'm not familiar with Modula-3, but I may be on the ball anyway), in Java, multiple classes can implement the one interface, whilst in other systems, an object's interface is exclusive to that object. The Java "interface" is more like an Objective-C protocol. Dysprosia 09:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Technically, Pascal was not a type-safe language. It was a strongly typed language, but without garbage collection, it could not be completely type safe. The proof is somewhat technical, but the idea is that if a language does not have garbage collection (or reference counting), a dangling pointer could exist in the system such that it points to a newly allocated object that contains a field with a different type. If the dangling pointer had an integer field, but in that same spot the new object had a pointer, the pointer could take on any value and type-safety is violated. MShonle 09:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)