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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!ctrsol!lll-winken!arisia!sgi!shinobu!odin!delrey!shap
From: shap@delrey.sgi.com (Jonathan Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs C/UNIX / switching speeds
Message-ID: <1624@odin.SGI.COM>
Date: 27 Nov 89 16:39:03 GMT
References: <14042@grebyn.com>
Sender: news@odin.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <14042@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:
>Sometimes, these arguments get off track so badly that the
>non-initiated might lose their bearings following them.  Remember,
>it is Ada and not C or C++ which makes the mistake of having
>tasking be part of a programming language rather than part of an
>OS or a library.

There is merit to having a standardized tasking interface available to
the programmer.  Whether it lives in a standard library or in the
language is, from the standpoint of the engineer who wishes to write
portable programs, of limited importance.

This is not an argument for putting tasking in the language.  It is
essential that one be able to write nonportable programs or support a
local-only tasking model.  The choice also seems to relate to schools
of language design minimality, and I for one prefer minimalist
languages.  It is rather to point out that for the vast majority of
programmers, the issue is unimportant.

Jonathan Shapiro
Silicon Graphics, Inc.