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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada advocacy
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:45:25 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1qdu9om2qiq0c.15aux2czbq8y2$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: 
 <19595886.4450.1332248078686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfy7>
 <2012032020582259520-rblove@airmailnet> <jkc59a$hs5$2@speranza.aioe.org>
 <12ee9bc5-3bdf-4ac0-b805-5f10b3859ff4@googlegroups.com>
 <vhcvr8d4kq6ribdqeeb0b857ei5aa5luiv@4ax.com>
 <6c58fae4-6c34-4d7a-ab71-e857e55897c0@x6g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>
 <wccvc5b49yc.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.w2g9br0kule2fv@cardamome>
 <kvj5f8$bba$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: IenaDxMXK2hi7fvYcb+MlQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Original-Bytes: 2296
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183177
Date: 2013-08-28T09:45:25+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:25:01 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 27/08/2013 15:34, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) a écrit :
>> Why did you said “no big loss” about the rendez‑vous? What's your known
>> issues with rendez‑vous? I never used concurrency a lot until now, so
>> that's really a question, because I may  (or may not, I still don't
>> know) have to use it.
> It's a one person's opinion, that I certainly don't share.
> 
> Rendezvous are a high level concept, easy to use because close to what
> you do in real life. Only those who think close to the bare machine have
> issues with rendezvous. And don't forget a big plus of rendezvous over
> protected objects: termination is (can be) automatic, without devising
> some complicated handshaking.

Another plus is that rendezvous need not to be non-blocking and may include
lengthy actions.

Rendezvous could be easily extended on a distributed system, which would be
practically impossible for protected objects.

I think that for distributed and massively parallel systems rendezvous
clearly beat protected objects.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de