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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 05:44:18 -0500
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
	<872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
	<9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
	<4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
	<op.vvz3hpb7ule2fv@douda-yannick> <87aaeban8a.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<op.vvz4zgm2ule2fv@douda-yannick> <8762ozahib.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<op.vv0bpcojule2fv@douda-yannick> <871uznaczz.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<015e3d6a-772a-41f8-a057-49c8b7bd80e1@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<op.vv0qr4d5ule2fv@douda-yannick>
User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4MednVYCXuUZQEHQRVn_vwA@giganews.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 05:44:20 -0500
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-ZMyjWaSiQ0TzF4svPN41vIx9UibBEvH5ZijpkH8iFSoNndufbj6jyzDIn61RXACv3QmXPzzfIPSUES9!3mdGZvyHXtJMv7mOiva6gY5zGKgTfB2Ds6/ejZPYxy2rGWmoc3p2YNODOhwbylU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3335
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20436
Date: 2011-05-25T05:44:20-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 25 May 2011 06:01:06 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Then I don't believe POSIX is a standard the same way Ada is a standard.
> Ada started as a standard from requirements, while POSIX started as a
> standard from existing features : its purpose was to be a standard for
> UNIX systems… so anyone can bet this is not surprising then if UNIces
> seems more POSIX compliant than others. Or may be UNIX is the only one
> legitimate OS base ? (I believe someones believe this, indeed). POSIX is
> not more a standard than PHP or Python are.

I think that's an inaccurate characterization of POSIX.

POSIX is, in fact, a standard. It was originally created by the IEEE. 
See, for example:

     http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/

>From the abstract:

"This standard defines a standard operating system interface and 
environment, including a command interpreter (or "shell"), and common 
utility programs to support applications portability at the source code 
level. This standard is the single common revision to IEEE Std 
1003.1-1996, IEEE Std 1003.2-1992, and the Base Specifications of The 
Open Group Single UNIX Specification, Version 2. This standard is 
intended to be used by both applications developers and system 
implementors. It comprises four major components (each in an associated 
volume)"

It is true that POSIX was designed to standardize the existing practice 
in the Unix community. This is typical of the way standards are usually 
created; it is the history of the Ada standard is unusual.

It also true that autoconf is a travesty... a throwback to a darker age 
when the POSIX standard did not exist (or at least was not widely 
implemented).

Peter