comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Subject: Re: tasking in language a bad idea
Date: 4 Jun 90 08:30:13 GMT	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1770@tkou02.enet.dec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20104@grebyn.com

I can't believe that my first post to comp.lang.ada is a follow-up
to T _ _    to  _ _ _ _ _   I can't say it.  Anyway,
In article <20104@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:

>The
>whole point was that a library is FAR easier to modify than a political-
>football/white-elephant/sacred-cow is.

Do you mean the way printf() and scanf() have had their syntax improved?
Do you mean the way gets() was deleted entirely, or at least had the
size parameter added?
Libraries are easier to fix in theory, but not in the real world.

Tasking is the I/O of the 90's.  Its specs still aren't debugged,
but it's close enough to belong in programming languages, and
laughable to exclude it.

-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC     diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com
Proposed group comp.networks.load-reduction:  send your "yes" vote to /dev/null.

  reply	other threads:[~1990-06-04  8:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1990-06-04  2:42 tasking in language a bad idea Ted Holden
1990-06-04  8:30 ` diamond@tkovoa [this message]
1990-06-04 16:31 ` Executible Program size (was Re: tasking in language a bad idea) Andy DeFaria
1990-06-04 18:25 ` tasking in language a bad idea Charles H. Sampson
1990-06-04 21:26   ` Ken Thompson
1990-06-04 19:22 ` Executible Program size (was Re: tasking in language a bad idea) Paul A. Varner
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox