Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!udel!rochester!ur-tut!ur-valhalla!sperry
From: sperry@ur-valhalla.UUCP (Bob Sperry)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Mesa is a dreadful language?
Message-ID: <1064@ur-valhalla.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jul-87 15:25:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-valha.1064
Posted: Mon Jul 13 15:25:09 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jul-87 06:45:16 EDT
References: <764@unc.cs.unc.edu> <1120@killer.UUCP>
Organization: EE VLSI Graduate Research Facility, UR, Rochester NY 14627
Lines: 23
Summary: Mesa is a better language than C


I strongly disagree with the contention that Mesa is a dreadful
language, especially if the comparison is to C. I feel that C is a
hackers langage which is unsuitable for the development of large
software systems. I would consider the proof of this contention to be
UNIX.

As to the contention that Mesa is Pascal with a few extra whistles and
bells, I again disagree. Their are two principle differences between
the two. First of all, Pascal does not have the langage constructs
necessary for coordinating multiple light-weight processes (i.e.
monitors, and condition variables). Secondly, Pascal is not oriented
towards large systems, and incremental binding ( i.e. directory,
imports, exports).

I feel that a language is only a single component of the overall
system, and it is this system which should be evaluated. In the case
of C this system is often UNIX. In the case of Mesa, this system is
XDE. For the personal workstation environment, I feel that XDE is a
major improvement over UNIX. The major disadvantage of XDE is embedded
in the first letter of the acronym. If Xerox offered XDE on the SUN, I
believe it would supplant UNIX as the most popular operating system
for personal workstation class machines.