> I don't see anything wrong with having an application written in
> Modula-3, provided that I don't have to maintain it.  However that's not
> to say that I couldn't -- it's a very readable and relatively simple
> language.  If I want to use that application then I will try to find a
> platform that it's supported on -- it's just that simple.  I'd even run
> FreeBSD binaries to transfer the repository if that were necessary, but
> of course that *would* be bogus when the source is available and already
> usable on NetBSD.

[snip]

> > 3) M3 folks have to re-do all the hard work of gcc/egcs folks
> > 	of optimizing compiler for all the archs/oses it might run on;
> > 	if we would decide to use it for tool NetBSD relies on, we
> > 	would have to actually SUPPORT it on our side -- any voluteers
> > 	willing to do it ?
> 
> I don't think that's quite the issue you claim it is.  Besides, the hard
> work is already being done by M3 fanatics.  

Exactly, they say "Porting the Cambridge Modula-3 compiler or
the SRC Modula-3 compiler is not very difficult" (if you have gcc backend
for your target architecture).
We can just use CVSup where it is available now and add support for additional
architectures later (getting Modula-3 compiler as a nice by-product).

PS. I remeber Jaromir to run Kaffe/JIT back when it was i386-only ;-)

-- 
Zdenek Salvet                                              salvet@ics.muni.cz 
Ustav vypocetni techniky Masarykovy univerzity, Brno
tel.: ++420-5-41 512 257                           Fax: ++420-5-41 212 747
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           If God had meant for us to be in the Army,
         we would have been born with green, baggy skin.