dn> Modula-2 is a brilliant language, and I prefer it by far to C. However,

I am very surprised to hear you say this.  I had to do Modula 2 at Uni, and
I did not enjoy it.  Can you show me an example of doing something in
Modula 2 vs C where you prefer Modula 2?  It's been quite a while since I
used Modula 2, so can't come up with too many hard examples myself.

Converting from int to char and vice versa seemed quite awful.

Also I didn't like the mixed-case that they made you use.

I didn't like having to name all the things I was importing either.

 dn> But, since everyone seems to be voicing an opinion on C vs Pascal - if the
 dn> ultimate aim is to learn C, then stopping by Pascal in between is a waste
 dn> of time - there is nothing useful taught in Pascal that cannot be learned
 dn> in coming to grips with C, and plenty of useless things taught which
 dn> aren't necessary in C.

Well, in the case of teaching others, you've got to consider people less
intelligent than yourself, not the other way around.  And quite frankly, I
think C is harder to learn than any other language, assembler not
discluded. When I went to learn C, I already knew a swag of other languages
(including 6502 assembler), and figured I'd learn C overnight.  That is far
from reality.

I would suggest that the only effect starting on C would have is to put
people off programming forever.  If you want people to ease people into it,
I'd suggest start off with BASIC until you know what a variable is.  Then
into Pascal until you've learnt what structured programming is, and then
you can start on C.

I agree with you that assembler is a good background to C, and possibly
that should come before going to C from Pascal, although I don't know if
people will be too happy to do that.

Going straight to C, without going through Pascal, is basically like
learning to swim in the deep end of the pool.  A good way to get drowned,
even though the end objective is to be in the deep end.  BFN.

Paul

--- GoldED/2 2.42.G1114