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.