rentsch@unc.cs.unc.edu (Tim Rentsch) (07/04/87)
In some previous article lindsay@cheviot (Lindsay F. Marshall) writes: > > I think mesa is a dreadful language. Interesting opinion. Would you mind defending your opinion with some facts (or even just some reasons)? > Mesa is the most verbose Algol-like language I have ever used (much > worse than Ada) and it is full of the most ridiculous syntax I have ever > come across. As for it's much vaunted type safety, if you look at any > large programs written in it they all make massive use of the "loophole" > facility to avoid the type-checking....... Oh, come now. Mesa syntax worse than Ada? How many syntax rules does Mesa have? How many does Ada have? (Offhand I have no idea, although I have seen collected syntax rules for both.) "Ridiculous" is a fairly subjective word -- would you mind at least telling us what you mean by "ridiculous", or give some examples (contrast the examples with others from Ada or Modula which are not "ridiculous", if you don't mind). As for type safety, I have looked at (and worked on) large programs written in Mesa, and they did not make "massive" use of loophole. To be sure, there were 'loophole's used, but at those places where the type of something was being changed, so as to facilitate stronger type checking elsewhere. Not massive, by any means. Would you have us go the C route, where loophole is unnecessary because everything is an int? Please excuse the mild heat, it just bothers me when someone posts an article which says "my opinion is x" without giving some substance or explanation for why his opinion is what it is. cheers, Tim