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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: tasking in language a bad idea
Message-ID: <1770@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 4 Jun 90 08:30:13 GMT
References: <20104@grebyn.com>
Reply-To: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.