Micron

This is a cool system and well documented (book + software). Here is a version ported to the Micron language (a Pascal/Oberon derivative): https://github.com/rochus-keller/Micron/tree/master/testcase....

> nowadays it places an unneeded toll on the shift and caps lock keys and makes coding a bit more tedious Right. But there are evolutions of Oberon without these orthodoxies (e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/oberon or https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron) and a few additional features which make it a really powerful but still lean language.

Not to be mixed-up with the Micron programming language (see https://github.com/micron-language/specification and https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron/), also mostly written in C++. That said, Micron.cpp looks like a cool alternative for the C++ standard library.

I have many GPL projects (e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon, https://github.com/rochus-keller/Luon, https://github.com/rochus-keller/Micron) and spend a significant amount of time in them. GPL has always explicitly permitted commercial use; that's a feature, not a bug, dating back to Stallman's original vision. Any person or company can use my code (or Kefir code) under the terms of the GPL, as I use code given away by companies under GPL or even more liberal licences for free. That's the deal. GPL is a license explicitly designed to maximize use, so it doesn't make sense to object to a specific form of use. The claim that AI companies are somehow violating GPL by training on GPL code is legally baseless (I studied law here in Switzerland and had lectures about international IP law); also the FSF itself has not claimed otherwis

Cool. It's still a great backend, even for a statically typed language, and the FFI and debugger features are very useful. Mono is yet another great backend which in addition supports multiple threads and has the higher performance, but with a (slightly) higher footprint. I have used both in different projects (see e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon or https://github.com/rochus-keller/Luon), and currently I'm even implementing a LuaJIT bytecode generator for my Micron intermediate language which uses LuaJIT essentially as a kind of C interpreter, even with my own native stack and GC (https://github.com/rochus-keller/Micron). The reason why I switched from generating Lua source code to LuaJIT bytecode in 2019 was mostly the higher flexibility. I could better avoid operations not yet supported by the tracer, and some language feat

Yes, the original Oberon (which the system is based on) has upper-case keywords (and some other orthodoxies). If you are looking for something more modern, go to https://github.com/rochus-keller/oberon, https://github.com/rochus-keller/luon or https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron.

I don't know. Unfortunately we don't have an Oberon compiler doing similar optimization as e.g. GCC, so we can only speculate. I did measurements some time ago to compare a typical Oberon compiler on x86 with GCC and the performance was roughly equivalent to that of GCC without optimizations (see https://github.com/rochus-keller/Are-we-fast-yet/tree/main/O...). The C++ type system is also pretty strict, and on the other hand it's possible and even unavoidable in the Oberon system 3 to do pointer arithmetics and other things common in C behind the compiler's back (via the SYSTEM module features which are not even type safe). So the original Oberon syntax and semantics is likely not on the sweet spot of systems programming. With my Micron (i.e. Micro Oberon, see https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron/) language currently in development I t

Thanks. In contrast to Smalltalk or Lisp, Oberon is originally a native language, and the Oberon System originally was conceived as the native operating system of the Ceres computer used for teaching in the nineties at ETH Zurich. So there is no image as in Lisp or Smalltalk. Oberon lives on today in the form of various dialects and derivatives (such as my Oberon+ or Micron languages, see https://github.com/rochus-keller/oberon and https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron). There are indeed Oberon implementations which run on Java or ECMA 335 runtimes, which is possible due to the very restricted pointer handling and memory management of Oberon.

FP is an interesting language. In my opinion, it is somewhat problematic that different language concepts (Delphi, etc.) have been more or less merged into FP, resulting in redundant object models, for example. Pascal as a language also has various historical legacy issues (dangling else, block overhead, global namespace, etc.), which Wirth corrected in Modula and Oberon. The compiler is huge and apparently difficult to maintain (see e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/freepascal/). The resulting, optimized x86 code achieves about 70% of GCC compiled C code (see e.g. https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php?topic=64261.0), and it turned out that desctructors and some built-in data structures are extremely slow. So I went on to implement my own Pascal/Oberon descendant (see https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron/, work in progress

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing. I'm still considering using SLJIT for my Micron interpreter (https://github.com/rochus-keller/Micron), which is a stack machine as well; but given the relatively low speed-up I still doubt whether it's worthwhile. It should then also support some kind of debugger (not only for JIT development, but for the user of the jitted language), which is apparently not yet supported by SLJIT.

Remarkable that Bill is interested in a version of Oberon-07. It's even more minimalistic than the previous Oberon versions. I spent a lot of time with the original Oberon language versions and experimented with extensions to make the language more useful for system programming (e.g. https://oberon-lang.github.io/ and https://github.com/rochus-keller/oberon/). Eventually I had to give up backward compatibility to get to a language which I really consider suitable for system programming (and still minimal in the spirit of Oberon, see https://github.com/micron-language/specification/ and https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron/); it's still evolving though. If I get it right, Bill's language is considered for teaching purpose, which is also a goal of Wirth's languages, and for which these languages are well suited (especially for compiler c

> Delphi, Oberon and Object Pascal [..] I never found these languages compelling. Why? Because none of them were anywhere close to being the same kind of simplicity as Pascal Agree. Oberon comes close, but has other orthodoxies like upper-case keywords, and it lacks the low-level support of e.g. Delphi. I spent a lot of time with extending Oberon, but backward compatibility prohibited some features I thought were necessary. My forthcoming Micron language is this kind of "better Pascal" you mentioned; essentially it's an Oberon withouth orthodoxies and with the power of C (without its disadvantages); there are language levels from minimal, stack-less systems, up to dynamic dispatch and optional garbage collection. See https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron/.

> Pascal for microcontrollers It's in the making, but needs more time: https://github.com/rochus-keller/micron/

> Oberon also doesn't seem to be actively developed anymore as far as I can tell See https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon, and derived languages such as https://github.com/rochus-keller/Luon or https://github.com/rochus-keller/Micron, which inherit the "spirit of Oberon", but specialize for other use-cases than the original.