Maybe he contributed the receiver syntax to Go, we can only assume. But anyway it's not that much Oberon in Go, much less than pop culture assumes. By the end of the day, the two languages mostly share the concept of static typing (with Go even stricter than Oberon), modularity and garbage collection; otherwise they have a different focus (concurrency in Go, type extension and minimalism in Oberon).
Only if consider the Oberon from 1987 and nothing else in the Oberon ecosystem.
Nothing else in the ETHZ group doing Oberon related research counts from that point of view, if it didn't had the touch of Niklaus Wirth himself adding lines to the compiler.
> Only if consider the Oberon from 1987 and nothing else in the Oberon ecosystem counts [..] if it didn't had the touch of Niklaus Wirth himself
I considered all languages where Wirth was at least co-author, because that was the claim made in this thread. I assume you mean Active Oberon; but this version is even further away from Go (closer to Ada95, Java and ConcurrentPascal). And I'm neither a "Wirthian" nor do I believe in personality cults, if it is that what you assume.
I mean every single Oberon variant produced by ETHZ students during their PhD, all of them.
For me that is always what I cared about in the Oberon universe.
Original Oberon was interesting for 1987, and Oberon-07 is kind of interesting from Niklaus Wirth pursue of minimalism point of view.
Most more interesting are all the works produced in the context of languages and operating systems research at ETHZ in the context of Oberon derivatives.
One of this students brought his education to another programming language.
From my point of view, we will keep on disagreeing, regarding Oberon.
> From my point of view, we will keep on disagreeing, regarding Oberon.
I don't even know in what respect we disagree; maybe it's also due to the language barrier. If you have specific questions about my projects, feel free to ask.
