Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!UB.CC.UMICH.EDU!Bruce_Howard
From: Bruce_Howard@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: So what's wrong with Aegis?
Message-ID: <668935@ub.cc.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 4-Jun-87 03:42:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ub.668935
Posted: Thu Jun  4 03:42:34 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jun-87 06:50:12 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 22

Most of what David Krowitz points out is true.  I must disagree,
however, on one point: the naming scheme for function calls.  I
find the inclusion of a $ in names quite obnoxious.  This serves
only to maintain the largely artificial difference between system
(kernel) calls and library function calls.  As systems isolate
the programmer from the specific hardware more and more, such
naming segregation really is not necessary in most cases.
 
The naming scheme, while resulting in descriptive function names,
also results in function names that are too long and too similiar
to each other.  When I quickly scan down a section of code, a
series of function calls beginning with the same words are easily
confused.
 
Aegis has a lot going for it and has implimented features that are
quite advanced.  In my opinion, Apollo is moving in the right direction.
However, I find the fact that it is still wedded to Apollo hardware
quite distressing.  With the development of the NCS and increasing
connectivity through UNIX networking code, this may become a moot
point...we shall see.
 
                     Bruce Howard @ caen.engin.umich.edu