This document is a work in-progress, started to reflect what I have learned about Modula-2 through ETH papers and editions of Programming in Modula-2[W82] (PIM). This will not cover the Modula-2 edition of Algorithms and Data Structures[W86], or Compilerbau[Wir86].
My interest in Modula-2 began after studying Pascal as part of working through Software Tools in Pascal[KP81], part of a study of Unix and GNU/Linux that occurred as part of my computing hobby (and a career). See my article hello, world about some of my early computing interests, and my Notes on The Unix Programming Environment.
The first thing to note is this is written solely by Wirth, something he hadn't done since Systematic Programming: An Introduction[W76]. The Preface indicates that the book is an introduction to programming, suggesting that it is, in a way, a replacement to the earlier text. That text used Pascal, introduced the computer and its history, and focused some on early algorithmic verification methods. It also looked at basics of diagraming a program.
[Note:] I am still evaluating PIM3, and comparing it to PIM and PIM2. Comparisons and comments related to PIM3 are thus incomplete. I haven't yet evaluated PIM4 nor the German translation of it (called the second edition). Though my German is rusty and incomplete, a comparison of the report in PIM4 with the translation's reproduction of it suggest that no changes to the language were made, though printed four years later.
An observation about PIM3 is regarding both efficiency, as Wirth rewrites the ETH compiler, but also feedback and standardization with third parties dealing with their own compilers, (not only with ETH and Medos-2). The move to PIM4 seems to be about the move to the 32-bit Ceres, as well as the MacOS MacMeth, and the adaption from 16-bit RT-11 and Medos-2, perhaps with influences coming from the beginnings in 1986 from the Oberon system and language research.
PIM programs were primarily tested using the Medos-2 4.2 disc of
Emulith. I noticed
that programs using the REAL type sometimes gave off-by-one
output, e.g. 2.999999 instead of 3. When testing the code using other
compilers this didn't occur. The Queens program gave an
error that made me wonder if the problem was with the Emulith display.
At least the output is given as an example in the book, (though not in
the Fourth Edition[W82]!).
Algorithms & Data Structures[W86] gives an example using InOut
instead of LineDrawing for Queens. The EBNF
tool compiled fine, but the program output failed to execute on
Emulith.
Due to bugginess with Emulith, which after a Windows 10 Pro upgrade
the edit program became unresponsive, I used an editor in
Windows to type out the programs, then copied them to Emulith using the
applecopy program. I wrote the following tool to remove the
linefeed character, since Medos-2 uses only the carriage return (the
same as with classic Mac OS):
MODULE rmlf; (* DEE 2023-06-11 *)
FROM InOut IMPORT CloseInput, CloseOutput, Done, OpenInput, OpenOutput, Read,
Write, WriteLn, WriteString;
VAR ch: CHAR;
PROCEDURE copy;
BEGIN Read(ch);
WHILE Done DO
IF ch = CHR(10)
THEN WriteLn
ELSE Write(ch)
END;
Read(ch)
END
END copy;
BEGIN WriteString("File to remove LFs: "); WriteLn;
OpenInput("TXT"); OpenOutput("TXT");
copy();
CloseInput; CloseOutput
END rmlf.
Thankfully, I was able to write this program with edit before it failed to
respond.
A word for word comparison of PIM with the Second Edition[W83] shows they are almost identical, including some corrections, but with nothing to suggest the language had changed in any way. However, the typography is less careful than the first edition, the latter of which is probably the best example of the four editions. Several other mistakes are found in the text. Here are some errata that mostly apply to both editions (otherwise noted):
Harmonic
imports the Write procedure, and uses it throughout, but it
should import WriteString instead, (Write needing to
be removed in PIM3)Fractions module is
missing lines 22-25 (see below for the missing output)IMPORT line from program Queens does not
match the definition for LineDrawing on page 114. The area procedure
should be used instead of paint throughout the program, and the clear
procedure should be used without parameters, (partly fixed in the Third Edition, but the parameters
in clear remain: a mystery)Processes IMPLEMENTATION module in the first edition of
PIM, Allocate is imported, when it should be ALLOCATE, fixed in PIM2,
(see the simple Storage) local module in the Report for Allocate)22 0.0'45 23 0.'0434782608695652173913 24 0.041'6 25 0.04'0
The change of name for MathLib, introduced in the December 1980 Modula-2 Report,
to MathLib0 in PIM is a mystery. The DEFINITION module is identical and
never seems to change. The only difference is the ETH reports for Modula and Modula-2 are all for
the implementation on the DEC PDP-11/40. The implementation for the Lilith uses CODE
statements for its M-code. Could this be why? One other possibility is forcing the recompilation of
modules that import it, perhaps from an early version of Medos?
Module Sierpinski was iterative. It was cool how hitting the space bar made it
do another more detailed round. I seem to remember that the output example on pg. 116 is after
three iterations. A fourth became very detailed, and beyond that started to white/black out the
display. The DrawCircle procedure example was fun to turn into a module and see it
work on Medos-2:
MODULE Circle; (* DEE 2023-07-17 *)
FROM LineDrawing IMPORT dot;
PROCEDURE DrawCircle(x0,y0,r: INTEGER);
CONST c1 = 400B; c2 = 200B;
VAR x,y: INTEGER;
BEGIN
r := r*c2; x := r; y := 0; r := r-1;
REPEAT dot(1, x DIV c2 + x0, y DIV c2 + y0);
x := x - y DIV c1; y := y + x DIV c1
UNTIL (x >= r) & (y <= 0)
END DrawCircle;
BEGIN DrawCircle(200,200,100)
END Circle.
The drawing of Wirth on pg. 119 was funny. The Draw module on the next page allows
the mouse to be used to draw this, so someone had a surprisingly effective control of their mouse
to reproduce that. Years ago, a friend did the same of me.
The version of the Buffer module on pg. 130 appears to be a local module. The
import list seems to need a FROM Processes from the previous page, but that does not
define ElementType which is used in the program. I found this in the buffer interface
module example in the description of the
The Use of Modula[Wir76], section 2.0.
This local module version seems to be a Modula-2 update, with the deposit and
fetch procedures elaborated on. The same goes for the Keyboard
module on page 137, which appears to be a rewrite of the keyboard device module
in section 2.2 of The Use of Modula[Wir76].
There's also the curious notation of [1] in the module Buffer header,
and a similar [4] in the Keyboard module header. The
Modula(-1)[Wi76] report explains this as device
module specific interupt prority or the interupt vector store location. Reading the description on
the next page (138), detail 3 explicitly states this: [4] is the
Keyboard modules interupt priority. When this is seen, it is specific to the DEC
PDP-11 implementation of the Modula-2 compiler. In both cases, the module ending semi-colon is
missing.
It is observed that the Report, placed in an Appendix, relies on the overall text and references it. This is somewhat significant, as interpretation of the Report can thus have implications derived from the text.
The gcd example of Modula(-1)[Wi76] is
moved to the text and replaced with a log2 example against CARDINAL. The
programs are essentially untouched, other than conversion to Modula-2. Same for
LineInput, TrackReservation, Storage, and
Typewriter (removed in PIM3 with the process related priority change), though as
usual, these local modules do not have their ending semi-colon.
©2023 David Egan Evans.