On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:14:10PM +0000, chris lanz wrote: > Thanks to Jay and Robby for their replies. > > I honestly don't care what form of message-passing I use, I just don't want to > > write my own. My app will eventually run different very large programs > (100,000 > > lines of C-like procedural code) on clustered machines controlled by a head > node. > > I have to rewrite all my original code in SOMETHING (it's in PASCAL because > > that's what I'm virtuosic in and that's what I've been using for 25 years) > and I > was preparing to rewrite in C and use MPI, but I've decided it's better to > > switch all at once.
There's a very reasonable systems language with a Pascal-like syntax, but without Pascal-like semantic restrictions, called Modula 3. It's not the same as Wirth's Modula 2 -- it wasn't even designed by him, but by a different group of very competent people at SRC long ago. Yes, it's object-oriented, type-safe, and garbage-collected, escept for very specific UNSAFE features, which cannot be used by accident. Go see its wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula-3) for general info about the language, and links to the currently available implementation, CM3, at elegosoft. Given where you're coming from, I'd say that if you don't choose Modula 3 (and you well might not) you should make sure you know why. -- hendrik _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
