cm3

knowledge into code. Note, a large-scale codebase makes C++ "cracks" more obvious. M3 provides a good cognitive-load paradigm during design/implementation of the code; thanks to principles of, more notably, modula programming, revelations, opaque-types. M3 gets to the point in a very elegant manner and made me realise early in the porting process that the "C++ experiment" has gone on for too long. This is how good M3 is. One book on M3, i.e. "Nelson's" book, is essentially the M3 spec; a spec from the late 1980's which feature-packed the language in a concise/logical manner. No multi-decadal evolving specs/committees as in C++. No compiler that does not support a language-feature. As in Wirth's paradigm, M3 has a relatively lean/simple language-core that can be used to create useful libraries/programs. Harbison's book can help flesh out some detail due to the former book sometimes being a bit less verbose; may be due to my applied-science background where I selected the "C", not "Pascal", route when starting computer programming decades ago. The tutorial links, etc., at the github site are useful. Anyway, once doing enough C++ (even at pre-C++-11 level), M3 will be an understandable surprise. Yes, it is important for the core of a programming language to be SIMPLE as well as being PRACTICAL and COGNITIVE-LOAD-EFFICIENT. My recent experiences lead me to believe that Modula-3 achieves this well. Gees ... Wirth is gone.