Scattered across the sections there are some remarks on some of the issues that lack of untraced references, or the existing finalization mechanisms were cause of attrition.
In Active Oberon those complains are no longer valid.
By the way, the author is relatively well know in research area nowadays.
Thanks, interesting; I have looked through the PhD report, but think that Active Oberon only addresses a fraction of the issues; e.g. the "loopholes" described in section 4.4.3 are still present even in more recent Oberon versions; and issues like low level bit manipulation were apparently not the topic of the PhD, but only addressed recently (in http://cas.inf.ethz.ch/projects/a2/repository/raw/trunk/Lang... or my version of the language).
"Insight ETHOS: On object-orientation in operating systems"
http://dx.doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-000666071
Scattered across the sections there are some remarks on some of the issues that lack of untraced references, or the existing finalization mechanisms were cause of attrition.
In Active Oberon those complains are no longer valid.
By the way, the author is relatively well know in research area nowadays.