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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.66.100.233 with SMTP id fb9mr7296259pab.21.1377675916080;
        Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.56.7 with SMTP id w7mr15196qep.16.1377675915844; Wed, 28
 Aug 2013 00:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!n2no5441011pbg.1!news-out.google.com!z6ni21052pbu.0!nntp.google.com!fx3no5854506qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <op.w2g9br0kule2fv@cardamome>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=195.182.34.201;
 posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.182.34.201
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>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <246849b7-7a53-48a2-8f64-ff6dfb2086ce@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ada advocacy
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:45:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:17001
Date: 2013-08-28T00:45:15-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Why did you said "no big loss" about the rendez-vous? What's your known =
=20
> issues with rendez-vous? I never used concurrency a lot until now, so =20
> that's really a question, because I may  (or may not, I still don't know)=
 =20
> have to use it.

The biggest issue with rendez-vous is that it is (the server-side part of i=
t) coupled by the rules of grammar to the top level of task body. That is, =
all your "accept" statements must be syntactically in the task body that de=
clared appropriate entries.
It looks OK in the book examples, but since it makes code refactoring impos=
sible, things can become ugly pretty quickly. This is kind of ironic, becau=
se rendez-vous is described as a high-level feature and high-level features=
 normally add to code clarity. Here you have a high-level feature that is c=
onstrained by low-level grammar rules, hence the contradiction.

The "no big loss" statement is justified by the fact that rendez-vous does =
not offer anything particularly useful to what is already offered by protec=
ted objects.

--=20
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com