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!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:54:02 +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> <4ddc33be$0$6547$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <4ddc451a$0$6546$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2011 01:54:02 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 9ff7778f.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=n]5aPaUK4DUaAeROF2PWMQ4IUKejVXC[DnC`;PS\R3hNE1O2P^ER X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19439 Date: 2011-05-25T01:54:02+02:00 List-Id: On 5/25/11 12:54 AM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote: > Le Wed, 25 May 2011 00:39:58 +0200, Georg Bauhaus a écrit: >> - if Ada was to standardize a binding, then that's new. >> Something standard that is not about an abstraction, > That's about abstraction, An abstraction like "network data communication" which would be similar to Sequential File. Whichever way the latter happens to be available in the external environment, you can open the file, read or write items, close it, etc. >> but >> rather about including some historic incident like BSD >> sockets, in the language description. > Where do you think Unicode (now partially supported by Ada) is rooted ? http://www.unicode.org/history/earlyyears.html Specifically, you can see how requirements were weighed and how the process didn't just revolve around just one precendent. They also noticed how they had been wrong assuming things. (In the following quote, I have replaced some Unicode specifics with letters to better show the general pattern in the process): "But all of a sudden, we could see the light go on in both of our faces: we had assumed that the standard ABC was a XYZ standard. We were so, so wrong. You needed WYZX to represent even the most common N. Worse yet, some P could be both G and H. We weren't in Kansas anymore!" I'm guessing that the same is going to happen if the Ada standard were to quickly adopt BSD Sockets. >> - it seems completely sufficient to agree, outside the standard, >> on an API that can be used with any Ada compiler. No >> standardization is needed at all. > OK. Let say it is not required, so "not" may be an option. Because a language standard is about things more general than a specific networking library. >> - Wait. We *do* have Ada Posix binding with an ISO number; since >> Posix sockets do the trick, there is no need to add them to Ada. > Bringing all of POSIX just to get sockets, is too heavy. The POSIX binding is ISO standardized. In a POSIX environment, such as Unix, Ada compilers would naturally be running on POSIX anyway. So it's already there. If not, then adding the binding will not mean that by using POSIX sockets you will also be dragging in POSIX threads, IMHO?. A language that allows a Max_Tasks => 0 restriction but threads when a programmer wishes to with a POSIX package?