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: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:09:49 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? References: <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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <4ddc3abd$0$6542$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2011 01:09:49 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 9ff7778f.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=[M;>ERQCW?M6PJ?[X6JIXE4IUK]NnbYBPCY\c7>ejVHC[DnC`;PS\BYHEinOM] On 5/24/11 9:38 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote: > The POSIX specification seems to only differs in the way to get host by name / address. POSIX differs by being a standard. > What networking requirement ? In ISO Ada standardization, requirements seem the reasonable criteria by which to proceed. > This thread is not about OSI layers packages for Ada, it's only about sockets, Then use the sockets from the Ada-POSIX binding and say a few strong words when your Ada vendor wishes to talk you into its compiler specific language packages. > Be pragmatic Hell, no, I'm really fed up with cleaning up after pseudo pragmatism. When it comes to standardization, the topos "pragmatic" has a very different meaning, an Ada meaning, not one of advertising an existing binding for language blessing. One aspect is that is must be practically possible to implement a feature. I don't expect SMB/CIFS in Ada either, even though it is just as ubiquitous, and even when using it means being "pragmatic". >> 2. In the light of Ada's history regarding standardization, >> there is, I believe, networking knowledge that warrants more >> than canonization of a practical workaround---which might fail >> if requirements are actually different. > What workaround ? When the requirements include "networking", then why would a language make the requirements more specific than need be by providing a standard package restricted to BSD Socket techniques? >> - What should programs be able to do when communicating data >> along some network connection? > Answered by the socket specification : there are raw, datagram, stream, blocking and none-blocking sockets, with IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. IP? >> - Is sockets the right approach? Consider Erlang! > Seems Erlang actually provides sockets. More prominently, and crucially, Erlang has channels built into the language, even into the syntax. That's the things by which you compare, design, and standardize languages, IMHO. >> - Is sockets the right approach? Consider a CAN! > A can 8-) ? A CAN is real, it is wide spread, it is not that new, and has money associated with it. I'm not familiar with one, but I am aware of its existence, and certainly that is a network to be considered if networking stuff is to be added to Ada proper.