From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,16594902ce57591b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Multitasking and containers
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@arcor.de>
In-Reply-To: <zq2w04z5om85.1adxu3bs3a773$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <ek6bqd$prc$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
	 <b62ajtddi0xt.5azckp3k6y3u.dlg@40tude.net> <ek6hsv$t1o$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
	 <143yx0dos45nx.159wpxvfevtt8.dlg@40tude.net> <u8xi1hwk5.fsf@earthlink.net>
	 <bFtah.295754$1i1.172141@attbi_s72> <1164623427.5986.11.camel@localhost>
	 <YiGah.160827$aJ.83689@attbi_s21>
	 <1164656708.657952.123430@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	 <pan.2006.11.28.01.45.08.406000@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
	 <uvel0qpmi.fsf@earthlink.net>  <zq2w04z5om85.1adxu3bs3a773$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1164709873.10405.15.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:31:13 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Nov 2006 11:21:49 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5a411244.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=2R3:K:[m01H=8m7nZkdN^@McF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRAgUcjd<3m<;BceNShYeeVgLnI_F1:>;OKNj_eH[TNeo8H]1>h\M_V99ObWoWITGh6mH
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7724
Date: 2006-11-28T11:21:49+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 09:50 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:19:55 GMT, Matthew Heaney wrote:
>  It is easy to imagine a
> situation (massively parallel computing with shared memory) where the loss
> could be huge.

I have learned that Ada tasking is defined at a relatively
high level. Suppose you are writing highly specialized low
level software, such as when taking advantage of a specific
computer's architecture at the system or hardware level.
It is easy for me to imagine that you are working way below
Ada's tasking level. Are you suggesting that this is the
normal mode of using a high level programming language
that supports tasking?